Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

When considering the meritocracy of players whom I never saw,I put quite a lot of value on the views of the contempories of that player,especially when such opinions are given whilst the player being judged was still playing.The prime example of this principle is Victor Trumper.His record is so similar to his almost exact contemporary Clem Hill.
Now Clem Hill was quite rightly considered a very great player.However,those who played and wrote in the era in which they,along with Ranji,JT Tyldesley and other great batters,were scoring their runs were almost unanimous in putting Trumper on a pedestal or tier above these other greats----and,I hasten to add,such opinions were proclaimed well before Victor's tragic early death.
I must make it clear,in deference to my good friend Coronis,that he threw many counter -arguments to support Clem Hill and,in the end,there is no science to these player meritocracy debates but it is SUCH fun.

I agree.

 

[Jane Austen]

Everyone is gonna have a different standard on what a minnow attack means, can't do anything for it except being consistent with your own standard of the term and hope most can come to similar enough conclusions, and that they do, It is also why performances against the objectively better teams (high W/L rates) are so valued.

But,again,Johan,you misunderstand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
As I,de facto,explained in my previous post,there is no "objectively better teams" because by trying to show statistically which may be a "better team" one has to invoke further figures to dissect and analyse and so on....and the choice of the statistics used to come to a view as to the "definition"of "a better team" relies on a choice ie subjective.
It may be that you are (mis)using the word "objectively" in the sense of popular or majority view in which case you are either following that majority view which is going against your proclaimed principle of not being influenced by the opinion of others AND/OR you are following the opinions only of those whom you trust which,of course,is a subjective choice!

 

[Johan]

But,again,Johan,you misunderstand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
As I,de facto,explained in my previous post,there is no "objectively better teams" because by trying to show statistically which may be a "better team" one has to invoke further figures to dissect and analyse and so on....and the choice of the statistics used to come to a view as to the "definition"of "a better team" relies on a choice ie subjective.
It may be that you are (mis)using the word "objectively" in the sense of popular or majority view in which case you are either following that majority view which is going against your proclaimed principle of not being influenced by the opinion of others AND/OR you are following the opinions only of those whom you trust which,of course,is a subjective choice!

So in your eyes there's no objective measure to prove the West Indies team of the 1980s was better than the Bangladeshi team of the 2000s? After all, anything used to prove so can just be called a subjective application of desired statistics, can't it be?

 

[Randomfan]

.

 

[Jane Austen]

So in your eyes there's no objective measure to prove the West Indies team of the 1980s was better than the Bangladeshi team of the 2000s? After all, anything used to prove so can just be called a subjective application of desired statistics, can't it be?

So you've resorted to semantic games.!
In which case, no disrespect,I will spell this out as if speaking to a ten year-old!
Who is the better bat-Don Bradman or Chris Martin? Consider their averages.However far one would wish to question ,dissect and analyse statistic after statistic ad nauseam,no other conclusion could be arrived at other than Bradman is a better batter than Martin.
Now,if you you feel you can defeat the assertion I make in the previous paragraph please go ahead.
However please consider the following comparison using our old friends Viv Richards and Ken Barrington.You will be able to produce many cogent statistics,opinions,lists,polls etc supporting,say,Barrington.However somebody as equally proficient as you statistically, will,in turn,analyse and dissect your statistical hypothesis in the way which I had explained before in support of Richards,and this will go on ad idem with each of you resorting to the subjective intangibles in the way I explained in a previous post.
So,yes,speaking literally my semantic pedantic friend,some comparisons are virtually indisputable,but the vast majority,as are enjoyably debated on this forum,are ultimatly argued from a subjective,NOT an objective,standpoint.

 

[Johan]

Now,if you you feel you can defeat the assertion I make in the previous paragraph please go ahead.
However please consider the following comparison using our old friends Viv Richards and Ken Barrington.You will be able to produce many cogent statistics,opinions,lists,polls etc supporting,say,Barrington.However somebody as equally proficient as you statistically, will,in turn,analyse and dissect your statistical hypothesis in the way which I had explained before in support of Richards,and this will go on ad idem with each of you resorting to the subjective intangibles in the way I explained in a previous post.
So,yes,speaking literally my semantic pedantic friend,some comparisons are virtually indisputable,but the vast majority,as are enjoyably debated on this forum,are ultimatly argued from a subjective,NOT an objective,standpoint.

I mean that's the point of a forum isn't it? people with different views debating their viewpoints and what they consider correct, I think Richards is superior than Barrington purely on the account of redball records alone, therefore I don't need to think further to rate Richards higher, if someone disagrees I can always debate it on the account of what the two players achieved in their cricketing career. I see nothing wrong with the approach and I'm not getting what part of "rating players on achievements and statistics" irks you?

 

[Jane Austen]

I mean that's the point of a forum isn't it? people with different views debating their viewpoints and what they consider correct, I think Richards is superior than Barrington purely on the account of redball records alone, therefore I don't need to think further to rate Richards higher, if someone disagrees I can always debate it on the account of what the two players achieved in their cricketing career. I see nothing wrong with the approach and I'm not getting what part of "rating players on achievements and statistics" irks you?

It doesn't irk me one iota.
I'm merely disputing your assertion that rating players on achievements and statistics is objective when it is actually as subjective as any other method.

 

[Coronis]

Rating based on overall stats means assigning a rating based on raw final numbers.

Every player has nuances that should be factored in. I rate based on record first as well but peer rating is a secondary or tertiary factor.

(Almost) Nobody here does this blindly. I believe a prominent member even has a quote saying exactly the opposite in their signature.

 

[Coronis]

Of interest to @Coronis and other basketball stats fans, statisticians have been doing the same with assists in basketball also. They have to subjectively determine on each pass prior to a score whether it "directly led to" the made shot via an "immediate move". So of course there's some subjectivity here (looking at you John Stockton and Utah home statisticians), but we've been relying in these subjective determinations for decades.

Cricket would be late to the party by starting to count them now, but dropped catches are pretty damn key of an insight, and better late than never, I say.

I know specifically that many assists in the modern game (e.g LeBron’s, Westbrook’s etc) wouldn’t have been counted as assists earlier. iirc in the days of a Cousy or a Robertson the player had to immediately shoot the ball upon receiving for it to be counted as an assist.

 

[subshakerz]

(Almost) Nobody here does this blindly. I believe a prominent member even has a quote saying exactly the opposite in their signature.

Many do that with Wasim.

 

[shortpitched713]

I know specifically that many assists in the modern game (e.g LeBron’s, Westbrook’s etc) wouldn’t have been counted as assists earlier. iirc in the days of a Cousy or a Robertson the player had to immediately shoot the ball upon receiving for it to be counted as an assist.

Also a lot of home bias generally with this stat. Pretty sure that aspect of it existed pretty much from the very inception of the stat.

Many advanced stats don't look that much into assists, considering it the least reliable counting Stat. Even more impressive then in my mind that a player like Jokic still dominates those advanced stats in an unprecedented way for years now, even with playmaker and assisting being a huge aspect of his game.

 

[kyear2]

I find it interesting how you cite slip catching and dismiss lower order batting as any sort of factor when in “average” teams as you describe there are multiple examples every year of the importance of just this. Most recently/famously the Starc/Boland partnership.

Simple answers to both really.

1. Never dismissed, said it shouldn't be a determining factor of selection. This being strongly backed up by several quotes from pundits, analysts and former test captains.

2. The players you chose proves my point for me. My argument has been, a Marshall and Warne type is good enough at no. 8, if for no other reason they did it successfully for, and I can't stress this enough, the two greatest teams ever. Starc (16 rpi bat) falls perfectly in that category, and Boland is a McGrath level bunny. You don't need to weaken your primary attack to facilitate this.

3. One is objectively more important to success and subsequently in terms of priority of selection. And it all ties back in. The no. one goal of any test team is to tske 30 wickets, it's the only way one can win a Test match. To that end, not only is the priority to select the bowlers you best believe gives you the opportunity to do that, but also you ensure that the area where most of those wickets are taken is as well manned as possible.

Does that make sense? That's always been the Australian and subsequently, the West Indian way. And part of almost every anecdote of the game. That the key to a great captain being a great attack, and catches winning matches.

It also comes back to the ongoing division of winning trumps draws. Which is and always should be the primary objective.

So again, and quite simply. Does that make sense?

 

[kyear2]

It's just the hilarity of this position that irks most users honestly.

Sobers, who averages 57 and 34 with the ball, is now somehow close to Bradman enough for an argument to be made on who is better, it's just the sheer brainrot of it. While Botham, a much better bowler than Sobers, averaged 35 with the bat, is no contest to Viv at all. Let me rephrase, Botham is much closer as a batsman to Viv than Sobers is to Bradman, and he's a far better bowler than Sobers, yet Botham is nowhere near Viv. Same with Marshall, botham the bowler is much closer to Marshall the bowler than Sobers the batsman is to Bradman the batsman, would you entertain an argument of Botham over Marshall? obviously not.

It's pretty obvious what this Sobers and Bradman stance of yours actually is.


1. Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played. Also, that doesn't mean they rate Sobers on par with Bradman just because they agree he is second to Bradman, everyone here does that too.

2. This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

3. Nah, it's still, at the end of the day, 34 averaging bowling. There are peaks there, match winning spells, and variety but it always rounds up to a pretty decent bowler and nothing more. Give me Miller's batting

Your position still makes absolutely zero sense, you're willing to overcome 43 point of average gap, and a ratio of 1.73 which is the same as the ratio between Tendulkar and Crawley, because of some good bowling and some great slip catching. Yet Hammond and Kallis are below Sachin despite averaging more than him, being 35 and 37 averaging bowlers respectively (though less workload) and being just as good in the slips as Sobers. Frankly, it's nonsense, if Sobers is a challenger to Bradman, then someone like Stokes is straight up clearly better than Sachin.


Healy keeping Gilly out was a mistake.

Frankly speaking, you're just in denial here. Any and all modern teams would pick the wicket keeper who bats better, now if the batting line-up has the place for both then ofcourse, both will be picked. But given the option between Ben Foakes and Risabh Pant? basically no lineup is picking Foakes, same with Healy who won't be picked ahead of Pant. The reality is most keeper average under 35, so Healy who was averaging 29 or so in a hard era would get picked in most teams but South Africa in 2016-2021 weren't trading De Kock for Healy, and Pakistan aren't trading Rizwan for Healy. It should be obvious, these guys are excelling in facets of the sport that matter a lot more, a QDK hundred from a clutch position is worth more than Healy taking 95% of chances rather than QDK taking 85% of chances.

At one point, after a keeper becomes great, the margin of help you get from a truly elite keeper is small, at that point you'd just take the much better batsman because frankly Cricket games are won through batting and bowling while keeping's value is solely to help the bowlers out somewhat.


Sobers being a rival to Bradman is not an accepted stance, it's Ian Chappell (who never saw Bradman) saying something that Keith Miller also apparently said.

Now, it has to be noted

1. Keith Miller and Don Bradman had multiple, relatively high profile feuds with each other. Bradman hated Miller and vice versa, so we can't take his word on this matter objectively.
2. Chappell too, had a beef with Bradman due to big disagreements about pay and Bradman's adminstrative qualities, once again, meaning he can't be taken all that seriously.

You cited biased testimony on this matter to make your opinion seem less of an unicorn, and honestly, I won't even care if you weren't so hilariously inconsistent with it. Sobers is a challenger to Bradman but Hammond is below Tendulkar? lol.

Regarding primary disciplines, there's some revisionism about Sobers the batsman, not that I personally disagree as I see Sobers as the fifth or sixth greatest batsman in history, but I have to say that you guys rate him higher than he actually was in the time as a bat alone. As a batsman alone, The excellent Rohan Kanhai was seen as an equal or rival to Sobers for much of their careers, atleast until the 1966 England tour, many believed Hammond and Weekes to be better batsmen including Cardus, Hutton and Bradman. Graeme Pollock was also seen as an equal for much of their career overlap.

All in all, obviously Sobers is elite, but him being the best ever candidate with the bat alone is similar to Hadlee, it's obvious but it's weird how you're one of the main propagators of one and a hater for the other.


Crazy how Hutton is better than both Sobers and Richards

maybe if he had the same playing style as Compton, and god horbid, the same playing style as one of the bazballers, he would be rated that way.

Anyway, there wasn't and most probably isn't a definitive consensus that Sobers was a better batsman than Hammond, even here where multiple users think Hammond was a better batsman but here it's mostly commonly accepted that Sobers is a better batsman, it would soon be the same with Smith as well, there is no divinally ordained top 4 after Bradman.


Lol, lmao even.

As someone who swears to adhere to the traditional views and what was considered objective, you're willing to go against them the moment it's a player you subjectively disagree with. Completely hilarious. Anyway, considering you on your own individuality are attempting to eliminate one of these four players, and have spent over a decade on this forum discrediting Barnes because of frankly what's an issue on your end, clearly we can just ignore this "consensus" the same way you do when it's a Cricketer you dislike, and one who you would whine about in the very next sentence.

Regarding you not knowing what Barnes bowled, that's just cause you have dug your head in the sand. We all know what Barnes bowled, and just for reference it doesn't mean we were there but we know by the same means we know the Roman Empire existed, by ****ing reading. Barnes bowled medium pace, relied on late swing both ways and huge cutters, he was exactly the same kind of bowler as Tate and Bedser, we all know that, you're just yet to catch up.

I have also posted images of how far he kept the slips in the past
View attachment 53385
Kindly stop coping about Barnes, it's beyond obvious what he bowled, you're just being willfully obtuse to be contradictory to your own methodology for a complete BS reason.


This is not a flex, you're basically saying you allow cricinfo or Wisden to dictate your opinions even though for your own personal reasons, you disagree with the said assessment. That just means you're suffering from a lack of self, which is pathetic, not great.


lol with both the English players, you've complained in one way or the other. With Barnes, you've used your personal willingness to dig your head in the sand as a reason he shouldn't be in the top ten bowlers or whatever. With Hobbs, it's tamer but you've put an asterisk on his entire peak.

With Bradman, you don't really have a choice but you have also consistently complained about it because of your dumb perception of the Cricket he played and have clearly expressed an irrational desire to shorten the gap between him and the BAB candidates. You also whine about Warne. The only three you are unequivocally in support of are those three and McGrath, I wonder why.

Anyway, there is no way Hammond matches Imran on secondary. Hammond's bowling, is at best, equivalent to Hadlee's batting while his slip fielding is elite, Imran winning on both primary and secondary means Imran is in general ahead of him. Imran also beats Kallis on both primary and secondary, clearly on primary this time (as clear as Lara vs Kallis) and secondary too. Imran doesn't have a tertiary, but he is a bowler which means automatically greater impact, and he is one of the great captains who handpicked and mentored people like Wasim and Waqar and had a huge positive effect on his country's cricket.


There are two reasons I took over here

The first is simple, I joined a debating tournament on another site, and have to knock off the cogwebs and build some writing time, so a big debate seemed fun to have, call it practise.

The second is this nonsense.

Nobody has ever claimed all ARs are superior to all non-Bradman specialists, it has literally never happened. The ARs thread was made by Subshakerz and not by him or me. The claim is that the great all rounders are greater than the great specialists simply because they are. The fact that you've gotten this mad that people would take someone like Kallis or Hammond over Viv or Sachin says a lot. Someone like Sachin would hypothetically make one or two runs per innings more than someone like Hammond, but would take a hundred or 150 less wickets than Hammond over career (let's say 200 matches for both), And let's not even discuss Kallis who would have like 250 more wickets, and then comes the slip fielding where Sachin is not even in the same rung as other two.

The fact the concept of someone picking 300 wickets over an extra 1000 runs, and consistent bowling spells, annoys you this much is just insane.


I think @subshakerz has done a good job of showing Imran is ahead of Marshall in more lists.

Lists from randos don't dictate greatness, Miller doesn't need to be in some lists to beat down Richards.


That won't make a difference. If anything they will get crushed even harder, McGrath was a respectable but hardly impressive outfielder who was the definition of a nothing burger batsman, Tendulkar was a bowler with potential but one who eventually averaged 55 with the ball, was a non-remarkable slip and a nothing captain. It's pointless to compare them to Imran or Miller.


Yeah, No.

You picked a specific example of a team with passable bowling and unacceptable batting. I can do the same too, the Indian team of the 2000s would take Miller comfortably and Miller would be regarded as the god of Cricket because they need stronger bowling, same in the 1980s. Miller is a better Cricketer because over a similar career course, Viv would get 50 runs per dismissal and Miller about 38 runs per dismissal, over the course of 300 dismissals Viv would have around 4k more runs, but Miller in 300 innings would have over 530 wickets, 78% of that top order wickets which is way more valuable than a few thousand extra runs. A world class opening seamer + a 38 averaging batsman > a 50 averaging batsman. what are we doing here? there is no reason to overcomplicate it, Miller as a Cricketer is extremely high value.

As Kimber explained, Miller allows you to pick an extra Cricketer by doing the job of both the #5/#6 batsman, a frontline slip and an opening bowler.

Imran is destructive accross conditions, with winning spells bowled everywhere, an ability to tackle an immense amount of workload as well. He quite literally invented the school of bowling often used by the great flat or dead track bowlers that came after him, Steyn in particular. As arguably a top three user of reverse swing and his willingness to tackle a high workload, literally all of this is applicable for him, he just averages one point higher than
McGrath and that's it.


Even in his bowling all rounder phase, Imran had 28 RPI.

Saying a strong number 8 or 9 don't have influence is cope and denial, it's literally just that. It's denial of the obvious reality. For example, Imran is a much better batsman than Shaun Pollock and even Pollock regularly influenced games, You've been presented with many examples where even Hadlee effected the game with the bat, and many examples of both the mighty West Indies and the Golden Australian team being aided or bailed out by lower order. A strong tail has always been and will always be a factor, teams with weak tails struggle with tight chases, close draws and so forth.

Also, it's just a broad strengthening of the batting lineup. Unlike bowling, where the seventh best bowler of the team might never get the ball, atleast on sporting pitches, all eleven players always bat and try to contribute with the bat, it's just better to have a stronger batting lineup, I can't believe I have to say this.


The batting today is just the same thing as five decades ago was compared to seven decades ago. The introduction of Limited-overs Cricket means that fundamentally players are going to score faster, a similar thing happened in the 70s and 80s after the introduction of One Day Cricket in comparison to 50s and 60s, and players from the past thought this players to be technically bunk. Hutton thought a similar thing for Viv and Gower types as we do for Brook and Jaiswal types. Hutton had bar for bar the same reservations we do about Brook or Jaiswal today, like missing a straight one and not looking as reliable and correct to him.

View attachment 53386
View attachment 53387
Literally word for word what people say about modern batsmen, "might miss a straight one", "reliant on eyes, footwork and power rather than straight correct technique", "would like to him play a quality <insert random bowler type>" and so forth. It's a very common concept and is present in all eras of Cricket. Today is the same to the 00s/90s what the 70s/80s were to the 50s. ODI Cricket made batsmen more aggressive, they still scored the same amount of runs and were better strokemakers than their predecessors on average but worse technicans, not T20 is another evolution to the concept where the current batsmen are probably the most advanced they have ever been in strokeplay with a decline in technique and grafting.

You're also misrepresenting the view point of many when you say we like slower scoring more, we don't. The point is both lower and higher scorings have value, and therefore I don't believe we should think about strike rates when rating cricketers. Your side on this matter is uncompromising, and frankly seems arrogant about their belief of strike rate relevance. I respect someone from the pro-SR side a lot, but rest be assured if users like Subs or PC had the same unearned and unnecessarily arrogant attitude as some of you on this matter, it won't go down well. Also I'm not the progenitor of being anti-SR relevance, Coronis and PEWS were doing that years before me.

I even conceded already that a Cricketer, who has higher range, and can play both like Boycott or Brook, deserves credit for their versatility. I give credit to people like Root and Sangakkara to have so much range to their scoring rate, it is you who wants us to condemn one type of one dimensionality (Bruce Mitchell) while simultaneously another kind of one dimensionality (Sehwag), your view isn't some irrefutable truth.

Why is an unwillingness to do something a negative? like seriously? Shiv played slow but we knew he could accelerate, in certain conditions the lack of the ability to slow things down is a negative, like it was for the West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final. One dimensionality is a negative, but when a player like Chanderpaul or Dravid can accelerate from their tempo, it ceases to be an issue, the same way when a player like Viv or Weekes show they can slow down, their tempos are not an issue anymore either.

The only way a consenting adult batsman playing slowly can be a negative is when it's to the detriment of the team and they don't have the match awareness to realise when to accelerate, which OBVIOUSLY isn't the case with most of the low SR players.

About it being harder, it's not universally true, sure for the average batsman it's hard but there are plenty of players who would find blocking 90 overs tougher than making the same amount of runs within 30 overs, especially today.


Slip catching is obviously an important skill, it's just frustrating the amount of value you put on it.

You once said Mark Taylor's slip fielding is more valuable than Kapil Dev, what a stance that was! For example, Kapil Dev makes 30 runs a dig batting 7 or 8, that's a good 10 or so runs extra from the normal number 7 and number 8 since the second war, would Taylor be a better player if he made those extra runs and multiple more centuries, or with his slip catching? the answer is obvious.

Slips are a tertiary position, they are important but not that important, if Slip fielding was truly as important as lower order batting or fifth bowler bowling, someone like Junior would be seen as on par with Senior, or someone like Ponting would be seen as better than Tendulkar at the very least.

The Cordon is a three man job, fifth bowler is a one man job generally, obviously the value of an entire cordon of three or four players would exceed the singular secondary discipline value of players, but you make the mistake of conflating the value of the entire cordon with singular players. Saying all great teams had great cordons is obviously true, it's also true that all great teams had great batting and bowling too, great opening duos of bowlers or great opening duos of batsmen. A great team is a great team because it excells in all three dimensions of the games, cordon is just one of them, nobody ever said a bad fielding side can be ATG.


I mean ofcourse, you should always pick the best bowling lineup, but for an average side, someone like Miller isn't a number 8 batsman, he is 5 or 6, he is also the best bowler or second best bowler in a team on average and thus you barely sacrifice anything by picking someone like him.

Anyway, obviously you want to pick your best bowling lineup, but you also don't want to sacrifice the batting, obviously a number 9 or 10 bowler should be picked for bowling, you pick a Jasprit Bumrah over a Vernon Philander everytime even though the latter bats way better but it's also simultaneously true that the gap between the great bowlers, especially the top ten, is negligible.

Picking Imran for bowling doesn't mean much, nobody is a much better bowler than Imran, the gap between them is negligible and an extra 10-20 runs a dig is certainly more valuable than miniscule bowling gaps. Especially someone like Hadlee, frankly there is no bowling gap between Hadlee/McGrath/Marshall, it's just a matter of finding one's arguments more viable, at that point there's no reason to leave the extra 20 runs a dig that Hadlee offers for a frankly non-existent gap.

PEWS said that yes, but Considering the standard for keeper bats and averages was 25 and lower generally for majority of Cricket history the value of bowling AR is high. Especially with someone like you, who fully advocates for Knott or Healy or even Evans sometimes, in that case the value gap between Imran and Marshall historically would increase. Even today, teams regularly field Buttler (31), Veryenne (30), Dickwella (31), Haddin (29) etc types, you still need bowling ARs.


1. Indeed, exactly why Kallis is a better player than Sachin. Sachin would give an extra 1000 run over the course of a long career, the extra 200-300 wickets Kallis would take, often times valuable partnerships, some four or wicket hauls in helpful conditions, bowl dry overs to buy time for the main pacers and so forth, are far more valuable than an extra two runs per innings. The same with Hammond.

2. Largely due to workload where it's Sobers >>> Kallis >> Hammond.


One Great slip fielding is not surpassing the value of a good lower order batsman or a good fifth bowler, an entire Cordon? for sure.

You made Assuming all things equal, a 8-11 of Miller, Imran, Botham and Jadeja (bowling ARs with strong secondary disciplimes) is winning you way more matches with an average slip cordon, than a slip cordon of Viv/Hammond/Soners are winning you with an average 8-11 tail. It's not that close. Their contributions are very comsistent and valuable.

Also, Root is a solid slip fielder, even they do drops sometimes.

View attachment 53380
Basically, batting is more important than fielding, complex I know.


The list being garbage is not relevant, your entire position is based upon "well they don't make all time XIS!!!", well, most of the all time XIs are also regarded as garbage on this forum, yet that doesn't mean you don't cite them. How can you dismiss lists while simultaneously citing XIs that are similarly silly.

Until the 80s, Larwood would make every single England XI and Trueman would make about none, who would you and collectively the entire forum vote as frankly the greater bowler? the answer is very obvious.


It's not.

An all time XI is overflowing with resources in all three dimensions of the game.

For example, Miller would open the bowling in 99% of the teams historically, might be every team ever minus the 80s West Indies. He won't get in a million mile radius of the new ball in an all time XI that has McGrath, Barnes and Marshall. In a conventional team, he would be allowed to show his full impact by taking the new ball and batting 5 or 6, therefore the latter is a better measure of his abilities as a cricketer.

As Imran said in his book, he believes these comparisons are weird because every team has their own requirements, if Botham played for West Indies in the 90s, there's no way he gets the new ball, or even the semi new ball if Bishop is around. That West Indies team, or the South African team pre Bavuma, would benefit more from having a Boycott than a Botham, is Boycott a better player? No. It's just team composition, the value of a Cricketer shows best when they are in an ordinary team and their own impact is higher.


1. Can you show me anyone claiming you should overlook vast batting differences in favour of minute bowling differences? Kimber in particular has an interesting view of all rounders

In a good Test team, Botham was at best a fringe pick as a batter or bowler. Most strong batting sides wouldn’t need him, and as a bowler, he’d only fit in specific attacks.

Yet I say this about one of the greatest all-rounders ever. Botham was less a specialist than a transformer - bending to what England needed, whether as a hard-hitting batter or a bowler leading the attack. England could change their lineups because Botham existed. He added more runs and wickets just by playing.

See how he explains how an all rounder who doesn't particularly excell in certain disciplines brings value to the team?

2. Fitting the team better is a basic concept. Hint Hint, it's similar to why Gilchrist crushes Knott, the secondary discipline is diminishing returns at one point. You don't exactly need a Hadlee or whatever at number 10 when you have Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Viv, Sobers and Gilchrist as your top seven, the batting resources are ridiculous and allow you to focus on solely bowling. This doesn't exist in the real world, mostly batting lineups that are average are aided by extra boosts down the order, South Africa throughout the 90s commonly fielded lineups that weren't so good but stll succeeded regardless because they had a strong tail that often waggled.

It's a simple concept, for example, in a slip cordon when you have Hammond/Kallis/Sobers, you don't need to put in Viv anymore, doesn't mean Viv's not a great slip and that doesn't add to his legacy, but simply you don't need another ATG slip fielder. That's how all time XIs work, they are ludicrously loaded with resources so at a point the secondary disciplines simply don't matter anymore, that's not the case in the real world.

On the matter of if they make the team better, they do make teams better, they make real teams better because their secondary discipline is extremely valuable to real teams.


It isn't, Gavaskar is picked over Kallis in any XI post WWII, Gavaskar and Hutton would open. Doesn't mean Gavaskar was a better Cricketer than Kallis, not very close at all. Sachin is picked over Hammond generally, Hammond obviously the better Cricketer.

They fit better because the secondary of Hadlee or Imran are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic presence of resources in all three facets of the sport, in an average team, where the tail runs would mean more, especially in close games, the all rounders have higher value.

Basically, the all rounders add more value in real teams and the specialists can be picked in fictional teams.


Lower order batting is highly valued outside here, there is a reason Jadeja is such a highly regarded player, Stokes too though he isn't lower order. It's only you who on the basis of some subjective lists have started a failing crusade against all rounders.


Ofcourse not, you're not aiming for anything. You don't have Toki Toki no mi, you can't manipulate time to bring all the Cricketers here to make all time XIs, you have to go by what happened in real world, and in real world most ATGs are judged on what they can do for real teams, which are normally average. I already gave you an example, Botham won't do much in an ATG XI clash, certainly won't be picked ahead of any great specialist, yet he is an elite Cricketer who often beats dozens of specialists and is often only beaten by the top ten of specialists.


They are not.

Wicket keeping comes under fielding, by this logic Ricky Ponting was an all rounder in comparison to most outfielders, he fielded in the slips which is a prominent fielding positions, just like keeping. I've never seen a wicket keeper be regarded as an all rounder, by that logic every slip fielder is an all rounder. look at ICC rankings, they don't count keepers as all rounders either. Keeping is fielding + extra steps.



History gave us a template indeed, and so does the present. Face it, in normal teams, the strength of tails is obvious and undeniable, as long as you don't have 5-6 ATG batsmen, the tails have value, as shown by how Australia with the strongest batting lineup in history were consistently being bailed out by the tail.

This is literally so simple, better batting = good, you're being silly if you sacrifice huge batting gains for negligible bowling gains.


No normal team in the history of this great sport is picking Sachin over Hammond unless they are led by ORS or AA, literally it's just a silly take.

Top 5 batsman + nothing bowler + average fielder + nothing captain vs Top 10 batsman + good seamer + reliable spinner both ways + the greatest slip fielder in history of the game + reliable captain. It can't be more obvious.


Lillee makes more XIs than Marshall too, by almost twice as many, but alas you don't actually believe in these methods when they stop aiding your favourites


Nobody is an idiot for having a preference of Cricketers, it's just not that serious a matter eh? but they are gullible and easily impressed. Akram averages 24-25 without a New Zealand so awful I'd argue they were worse than the West Indies batting line-up of the 30s and he bowled to them in very helpful conditions, great bowler and all but he was less effective than McGrath, Ambrose and Donald from his own generation.


Not really, Imran got more votes than Hadlee in the ATXI book that Peterhrt posted, and matched Hadlee in the Wsiden 100 too. Imran is rated on his numbers and that's an issue as it's pretty obvious he was a better bowler than his numbers indicate. They are hampered by the years he played as a batting all rounder (1989-1991) and the years he spent as a student who could only play a few games for Pakistan as he was studying in England.

Between 1976 and mid 1989, Imran averaged 21.44 with the ball, with New Zealand, India and England making flat pitches desperately to stop him (it didn't work mostly) while also making 28 runs a dig with the bat.


More skilled just means more tricks, these pretentious ****s would write poems about Harry Brook if they saw his 186, it doesn't mean much. Imran didn't have elite fielding either, it's just more apparent and discussed with Wasim because footage of a lot of Imran's career isn't there.

Wasim is as far from Imran as a bowler, as Donald is from Steyn. Then you add Imran's far better batting and captaincy, not even in the same universe as cricketers.


Once again, you can win the test without taking twenty wickets, you can never win a Test without outscoring the opposition, you should know well, the match that haunts Sobers is one he lost despite England not taking twenty wickets, infact England won that match and the series without even taking ten wickets.

Nowhere does it say that you can ignore an opportunity to have a substantially stronger and more reliable batting line-up chasing a bowler who takes the same wickets with a single run average difference. Imran Khan isn't Maurice Tate, you aren't sacrificing much of bowling with him, the template talk is all cool and edgy until you realise it's a multi-faceted sport and you need batting to fire just as much as you need bowling to fire.


The point is to score more runs while also bowling them out, an equilibrium is needed. no point bowling them out for 300 twice if your team gets bowled out for 250 because nobody 7 down can score more than 5 runs. Therefore an Imran provided a lot more value than a McGrath.


Your entire belief bowling all rounders aren't given points for their batting goes against reality of basically every match that is played, please start following Cricket over reading what random writers and Kimber have to say, perhaps then you'll say why players like Jadeja are regarded as so good despite being a good bowler at best.

And Yes, Bowling all rounders have real value and it's shown in every match they play, no matter how much you may dislike it.

That was a lot, going to try to break this up.

Sir Garfield St. Aubrun Sobers has been long and continuously rated as worst, the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time. Since 1966, as was noted by @peterhrt when he referneved the article written agaist him, there has been discussion and argument as to who was the better cricketer.
Up to yesterday I posted a video where it was clearly discussed as to why Sobers was rated as close to the perfect Cricketer, why there are literally articles titled who after Bradman and Sobers, it's why when Wisden chose their cricketers of the century that only two cricketers came out of the exercise head and shoulders ahead of the rest, and their place beyond repute.

In 1966 Neville Cardus wrote an article with the title “Gary Sobers: The Greatest Cricketer Ever?” It was a response to a question that began to be asked during that English summer. Until then there had been a fairly even three-horse race between The Champion (Grace), The Master (Hobbs) and The Don (Bradman).



Sobers was established. During the 1980s the indoor school at Lord’s displayed four large photographs of Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers. In 2000 Wisden's Cricketers of the Twentieth Century revealed that Bradman had received the maximum 100 votes from judges around the world, Sobers 90, with Hobbs in third place with 30. Hobbs had fallen away. Belonging to the previous century, Grace was not eligible, but he too had faded somewhat into the past.

There's a two man (three if cricket in general) pantheon of the sport, there's no need for there to be two people, and there wouldn't be if they weren't similarly rated.

To suggest that one can't be compared to the other speaks to a need to need to suggest that one doesn't belong in the pantheon and that's not you call to make.

The need for you and your cohorts to nake this a West indian vs others debate is not only disingenuous but deliberately dishonest, as I've covered in other posts.

Viv, like Savhin, like Hobbs, who I all have kn the same tier, least someone think I have Viv ahead of them somehow, are all multiple tiers above Botham, and that's beciase they're all top 5 batsmen of all time and that sets a platform that Botham can't overcome. He's neither a top 20 batsman nor bowler and two substandard skills together doesn't overcome one great one.

Sobers is arguably the 2nd or 3rd best batsman of all time, Richards top 5, Botham figures I assume somewhere outside of the top 50? If you want to belive that he's closer to the top 5 than Bradman is to Hobbs, Sobers, Richards and Tendulkar, then that's entirely up to you.

But as @peterhrt and @Jane Austen have recently pointed out, the best way to evaluate a cricketer is to also look at how they were rated by their peers and those who saw them in action. Stats have never told the entire story. That's how we know Richards was better than Barrington, that Lara and Tendulkar was a league above the rest of their peers, that Hobbs was equally ahead of Sutclife.

Those who saw both Bradman and Hobbs rated them very much in the same tier, even if Bradman was slightly ahead. It's only when those voices faded away that the "Bradman was twice as good as everyone else" chat started, far less gained traction.

You can also continue to deny that as long as you wish, but again, that too is up to you.

Revisionist history occurs when the eyewitnesses disappear and is quite common in our sport. You try it daily.

 

[kyear2]

It's just the hilarity of this position that irks most users honestly.

Sobers, who averages 57 and 34 with the ball, is now somehow close to Bradman enough for an argument to be made on who is better, it's just the sheer brainrot of it. While Botham, a much better bowler than Sobers, averaged 35 with the bat, is no contest to Viv at all. Let me rephrase, Botham is much closer as a batsman to Viv than Sobers is to Bradman, and he's a far better bowler than Sobers, yet Botham is nowhere near Viv. Same with Marshall, botham the bowler is much closer to Marshall the bowler than Sobers the batsman is to Bradman the batsman, would you entertain an argument of Botham over Marshall? obviously not.

It's pretty obvious what this Sobers and Bradman stance of yours actually is.


1. Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played. Also, that doesn't mean they rate Sobers on par with Bradman just because they agree he is second to Bradman, everyone here does that too.

2. This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

3. Nah, it's still, at the end of the day, 34 averaging bowling. There are peaks there, match winning spells, and variety but it always rounds up to a pretty decent bowler and nothing more. Give me Miller's batting

Your position still makes absolutely zero sense, you're willing to overcome 43 point of average gap, and a ratio of 1.73 which is the same as the ratio between Tendulkar and Crawley, because of some good bowling and some great slip catching. Yet Hammond and Kallis are below Sachin despite averaging more than him, being 35 and 37 averaging bowlers respectively (though less workload) and being just as good in the slips as Sobers. Frankly, it's nonsense, if Sobers is a challenger to Bradman, then someone like Stokes is straight up clearly better than Sachin.


Healy keeping Gilly out was a mistake.

Frankly speaking, you're just in denial here. Any and all modern teams would pick the wicket keeper who bats better, now if the batting line-up has the place for both then ofcourse, both will be picked. But given the option between Ben Foakes and Risabh Pant? basically no lineup is picking Foakes, same with Healy who won't be picked ahead of Pant. The reality is most keeper average under 35, so Healy who was averaging 29 or so in a hard era would get picked in most teams but South Africa in 2016-2021 weren't trading De Kock for Healy, and Pakistan aren't trading Rizwan for Healy. It should be obvious, these guys are excelling in facets of the sport that matter a lot more, a QDK hundred from a clutch position is worth more than Healy taking 95% of chances rather than QDK taking 85% of chances.

At one point, after a keeper becomes great, the margin of help you get from a truly elite keeper is small, at that point you'd just take the much better batsman because frankly Cricket games are won through batting and bowling while keeping's value is solely to help the bowlers out somewhat.


Sobers being a rival to Bradman is not an accepted stance, it's Ian Chappell (who never saw Bradman) saying something that Keith Miller also apparently said.

Now, it has to be noted

1. Keith Miller and Don Bradman had multiple, relatively high profile feuds with each other. Bradman hated Miller and vice versa, so we can't take his word on this matter objectively.
2. Chappell too, had a beef with Bradman due to big disagreements about pay and Bradman's adminstrative qualities, once again, meaning he can't be taken all that seriously.

You cited biased testimony on this matter to make your opinion seem less of an unicorn, and honestly, I won't even care if you weren't so hilariously inconsistent with it. Sobers is a challenger to Bradman but Hammond is below Tendulkar? lol.

Regarding primary disciplines, there's some revisionism about Sobers the batsman, not that I personally disagree as I see Sobers as the fifth or sixth greatest batsman in history, but I have to say that you guys rate him higher than he actually was in the time as a bat alone. As a batsman alone, The excellent Rohan Kanhai was seen as an equal or rival to Sobers for much of their careers, atleast until the 1966 England tour, many believed Hammond and Weekes to be better batsmen including Cardus, Hutton and Bradman. Graeme Pollock was also seen as an equal for much of their career overlap.

All in all, obviously Sobers is elite, but him being the best ever candidate with the bat alone is similar to Hadlee, it's obvious but it's weird how you're one of the main propagators of one and a hater for the other.


Crazy how Hutton is better than both Sobers and Richards

maybe if he had the same playing style as Compton, and god horbid, the same playing style as one of the bazballers, he would be rated that way.

Anyway, there wasn't and most probably isn't a definitive consensus that Sobers was a better batsman than Hammond, even here where multiple users think Hammond was a better batsman but here it's mostly commonly accepted that Sobers is a better batsman, it would soon be the same with Smith as well, there is no divinally ordained top 4 after Bradman.


Lol, lmao even.

As someone who swears to adhere to the traditional views and what was considered objective, you're willing to go against them the moment it's a player you subjectively disagree with. Completely hilarious. Anyway, considering you on your own individuality are attempting to eliminate one of these four players, and have spent over a decade on this forum discrediting Barnes because of frankly what's an issue on your end, clearly we can just ignore this "consensus" the same way you do when it's a Cricketer you dislike, and one who you would whine about in the very next sentence.

Regarding you not knowing what Barnes bowled, that's just cause you have dug your head in the sand. We all know what Barnes bowled, and just for reference it doesn't mean we were there but we know by the same means we know the Roman Empire existed, by ****ing reading. Barnes bowled medium pace, relied on late swing both ways and huge cutters, he was exactly the same kind of bowler as Tate and Bedser, we all know that, you're just yet to catch up.

I have also posted images of how far he kept the slips in the past
View attachment 53385
Kindly stop coping about Barnes, it's beyond obvious what he bowled, you're just being willfully obtuse to be contradictory to your own methodology for a complete BS reason.


This is not a flex, you're basically saying you allow cricinfo or Wisden to dictate your opinions even though for your own personal reasons, you disagree with the said assessment. That just means you're suffering from a lack of self, which is pathetic, not great.


lol with both the English players, you've complained in one way or the other. With Barnes, you've used your personal willingness to dig your head in the sand as a reason he shouldn't be in the top ten bowlers or whatever. With Hobbs, it's tamer but you've put an asterisk on his entire peak.

With Bradman, you don't really have a choice but you have also consistently complained about it because of your dumb perception of the Cricket he played and have clearly expressed an irrational desire to shorten the gap between him and the BAB candidates. You also whine about Warne. The only three you are unequivocally in support of are those three and McGrath, I wonder why.

Anyway, there is no way Hammond matches Imran on secondary. Hammond's bowling, is at best, equivalent to Hadlee's batting while his slip fielding is elite, Imran winning on both primary and secondary means Imran is in general ahead of him. Imran also beats Kallis on both primary and secondary, clearly on primary this time (as clear as Lara vs Kallis) and secondary too. Imran doesn't have a tertiary, but he is a bowler which means automatically greater impact, and he is one of the great captains who handpicked and mentored people like Wasim and Waqar and had a huge positive effect on his country's cricket.


There are two reasons I took over here

The first is simple, I joined a debating tournament on another site, and have to knock off the cogwebs and build some writing time, so a big debate seemed fun to have, call it practise.

The second is this nonsense.

Nobody has ever claimed all ARs are superior to all non-Bradman specialists, it has literally never happened. The ARs thread was made by Subshakerz and not by him or me. The claim is that the great all rounders are greater than the great specialists simply because they are. The fact that you've gotten this mad that people would take someone like Kallis or Hammond over Viv or Sachin says a lot. Someone like Sachin would hypothetically make one or two runs per innings more than someone like Hammond, but would take a hundred or 150 less wickets than Hammond over career (let's say 200 matches for both), And let's not even discuss Kallis who would have like 250 more wickets, and then comes the slip fielding where Sachin is not even in the same rung as other two.

The fact the concept of someone picking 300 wickets over an extra 1000 runs, and consistent bowling spells, annoys you this much is just insane.


I think @subshakerz has done a good job of showing Imran is ahead of Marshall in more lists.

Lists from randos don't dictate greatness, Miller doesn't need to be in some lists to beat down Richards.


That won't make a difference. If anything they will get crushed even harder, McGrath was a respectable but hardly impressive outfielder who was the definition of a nothing burger batsman, Tendulkar was a bowler with potential but one who eventually averaged 55 with the ball, was a non-remarkable slip and a nothing captain. It's pointless to compare them to Imran or Miller.


Yeah, No.

You picked a specific example of a team with passable bowling and unacceptable batting. I can do the same too, the Indian team of the 2000s would take Miller comfortably and Miller would be regarded as the god of Cricket because they need stronger bowling, same in the 1980s. Miller is a better Cricketer because over a similar career course, Viv would get 50 runs per dismissal and Miller about 38 runs per dismissal, over the course of 300 dismissals Viv would have around 4k more runs, but Miller in 300 innings would have over 530 wickets, 78% of that top order wickets which is way more valuable than a few thousand extra runs. A world class opening seamer + a 38 averaging batsman > a 50 averaging batsman. what are we doing here? there is no reason to overcomplicate it, Miller as a Cricketer is extremely high value.

As Kimber explained, Miller allows you to pick an extra Cricketer by doing the job of both the #5/#6 batsman, a frontline slip and an opening bowler.

Imran is destructive accross conditions, with winning spells bowled everywhere, an ability to tackle an immense amount of workload as well. He quite literally invented the school of bowling often used by the great flat or dead track bowlers that came after him, Steyn in particular. As arguably a top three user of reverse swing and his willingness to tackle a high workload, literally all of this is applicable for him, he just averages one point higher than
McGrath and that's it.


Even in his bowling all rounder phase, Imran had 28 RPI.

Saying a strong number 8 or 9 don't have influence is cope and denial, it's literally just that. It's denial of the obvious reality. For example, Imran is a much better batsman than Shaun Pollock and even Pollock regularly influenced games, You've been presented with many examples where even Hadlee effected the game with the bat, and many examples of both the mighty West Indies and the Golden Australian team being aided or bailed out by lower order. A strong tail has always been and will always be a factor, teams with weak tails struggle with tight chases, close draws and so forth.

Also, it's just a broad strengthening of the batting lineup. Unlike bowling, where the seventh best bowler of the team might never get the ball, atleast on sporting pitches, all eleven players always bat and try to contribute with the bat, it's just better to have a stronger batting lineup, I can't believe I have to say this.


The batting today is just the same thing as five decades ago was compared to seven decades ago. The introduction of Limited-overs Cricket means that fundamentally players are going to score faster, a similar thing happened in the 70s and 80s after the introduction of One Day Cricket in comparison to 50s and 60s, and players from the past thought this players to be technically bunk. Hutton thought a similar thing for Viv and Gower types as we do for Brook and Jaiswal types. Hutton had bar for bar the same reservations we do about Brook or Jaiswal today, like missing a straight one and not looking as reliable and correct to him.

View attachment 53386
View attachment 53387
Literally word for word what people say about modern batsmen, "might miss a straight one", "reliant on eyes, footwork and power rather than straight correct technique", "would like to him play a quality <insert random bowler type>" and so forth. It's a very common concept and is present in all eras of Cricket. Today is the same to the 00s/90s what the 70s/80s were to the 50s. ODI Cricket made batsmen more aggressive, they still scored the same amount of runs and were better strokemakers than their predecessors on average but worse technicans, not T20 is another evolution to the concept where the current batsmen are probably the most advanced they have ever been in strokeplay with a decline in technique and grafting.

You're also misrepresenting the view point of many when you say we like slower scoring more, we don't. The point is both lower and higher scorings have value, and therefore I don't believe we should think about strike rates when rating cricketers. Your side on this matter is uncompromising, and frankly seems arrogant about their belief of strike rate relevance. I respect someone from the pro-SR side a lot, but rest be assured if users like Subs or PC had the same unearned and unnecessarily arrogant attitude as some of you on this matter, it won't go down well. Also I'm not the progenitor of being anti-SR relevance, Coronis and PEWS were doing that years before me.

I even conceded already that a Cricketer, who has higher range, and can play both like Boycott or Brook, deserves credit for their versatility. I give credit to people like Root and Sangakkara to have so much range to their scoring rate, it is you who wants us to condemn one type of one dimensionality (Bruce Mitchell) while simultaneously another kind of one dimensionality (Sehwag), your view isn't some irrefutable truth.

Why is an unwillingness to do something a negative? like seriously? Shiv played slow but we knew he could accelerate, in certain conditions the lack of the ability to slow things down is a negative, like it was for the West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final. One dimensionality is a negative, but when a player like Chanderpaul or Dravid can accelerate from their tempo, it ceases to be an issue, the same way when a player like Viv or Weekes show they can slow down, their tempos are not an issue anymore either.

The only way a consenting adult batsman playing slowly can be a negative is when it's to the detriment of the team and they don't have the match awareness to realise when to accelerate, which OBVIOUSLY isn't the case with most of the low SR players.

About it being harder, it's not universally true, sure for the average batsman it's hard but there are plenty of players who would find blocking 90 overs tougher than making the same amount of runs within 30 overs, especially today.


Slip catching is obviously an important skill, it's just frustrating the amount of value you put on it.

You once said Mark Taylor's slip fielding is more valuable than Kapil Dev, what a stance that was! For example, Kapil Dev makes 30 runs a dig batting 7 or 8, that's a good 10 or so runs extra from the normal number 7 and number 8 since the second war, would Taylor be a better player if he made those extra runs and multiple more centuries, or with his slip catching? the answer is obvious.

Slips are a tertiary position, they are important but not that important, if Slip fielding was truly as important as lower order batting or fifth bowler bowling, someone like Junior would be seen as on par with Senior, or someone like Ponting would be seen as better than Tendulkar at the very least.

The Cordon is a three man job, fifth bowler is a one man job generally, obviously the value of an entire cordon of three or four players would exceed the singular secondary discipline value of players, but you make the mistake of conflating the value of the entire cordon with singular players. Saying all great teams had great cordons is obviously true, it's also true that all great teams had great batting and bowling too, great opening duos of bowlers or great opening duos of batsmen. A great team is a great team because it excells in all three dimensions of the games, cordon is just one of them, nobody ever said a bad fielding side can be ATG.


I mean ofcourse, you should always pick the best bowling lineup, but for an average side, someone like Miller isn't a number 8 batsman, he is 5 or 6, he is also the best bowler or second best bowler in a team on average and thus you barely sacrifice anything by picking someone like him.

Anyway, obviously you want to pick your best bowling lineup, but you also don't want to sacrifice the batting, obviously a number 9 or 10 bowler should be picked for bowling, you pick a Jasprit Bumrah over a Vernon Philander everytime even though the latter bats way better but it's also simultaneously true that the gap between the great bowlers, especially the top ten, is negligible.

Picking Imran for bowling doesn't mean much, nobody is a much better bowler than Imran, the gap between them is negligible and an extra 10-20 runs a dig is certainly more valuable than miniscule bowling gaps. Especially someone like Hadlee, frankly there is no bowling gap between Hadlee/McGrath/Marshall, it's just a matter of finding one's arguments more viable, at that point there's no reason to leave the extra 20 runs a dig that Hadlee offers for a frankly non-existent gap.

PEWS said that yes, but Considering the standard for keeper bats and averages was 25 and lower generally for majority of Cricket history the value of bowling AR is high. Especially with someone like you, who fully advocates for Knott or Healy or even Evans sometimes, in that case the value gap between Imran and Marshall historically would increase. Even today, teams regularly field Buttler (31), Veryenne (30), Dickwella (31), Haddin (29) etc types, you still need bowling ARs.


1. Indeed, exactly why Kallis is a better player than Sachin. Sachin would give an extra 1000 run over the course of a long career, the extra 200-300 wickets Kallis would take, often times valuable partnerships, some four or wicket hauls in helpful conditions, bowl dry overs to buy time for the main pacers and so forth, are far more valuable than an extra two runs per innings. The same with Hammond.

2. Largely due to workload where it's Sobers >>> Kallis >> Hammond.


One Great slip fielding is not surpassing the value of a good lower order batsman or a good fifth bowler, an entire Cordon? for sure.

You made Assuming all things equal, a 8-11 of Miller, Imran, Botham and Jadeja (bowling ARs with strong secondary disciplimes) is winning you way more matches with an average slip cordon, than a slip cordon of Viv/Hammond/Soners are winning you with an average 8-11 tail. It's not that close. Their contributions are very comsistent and valuable.

Also, Root is a solid slip fielder, even they do drops sometimes.

View attachment 53380
Basically, batting is more important than fielding, complex I know.


The list being garbage is not relevant, your entire position is based upon "well they don't make all time XIS!!!", well, most of the all time XIs are also regarded as garbage on this forum, yet that doesn't mean you don't cite them. How can you dismiss lists while simultaneously citing XIs that are similarly silly.

Until the 80s, Larwood would make every single England XI and Trueman would make about none, who would you and collectively the entire forum vote as frankly the greater bowler? the answer is very obvious.


It's not.

An all time XI is overflowing with resources in all three dimensions of the game.

For example, Miller would open the bowling in 99% of the teams historically, might be every team ever minus the 80s West Indies. He won't get in a million mile radius of the new ball in an all time XI that has McGrath, Barnes and Marshall. In a conventional team, he would be allowed to show his full impact by taking the new ball and batting 5 or 6, therefore the latter is a better measure of his abilities as a cricketer.

As Imran said in his book, he believes these comparisons are weird because every team has their own requirements, if Botham played for West Indies in the 90s, there's no way he gets the new ball, or even the semi new ball if Bishop is around. That West Indies team, or the South African team pre Bavuma, would benefit more from having a Boycott than a Botham, is Boycott a better player? No. It's just team composition, the value of a Cricketer shows best when they are in an ordinary team and their own impact is higher.


1. Can you show me anyone claiming you should overlook vast batting differences in favour of minute bowling differences? Kimber in particular has an interesting view of all rounders

In a good Test team, Botham was at best a fringe pick as a batter or bowler. Most strong batting sides wouldn’t need him, and as a bowler, he’d only fit in specific attacks.

Yet I say this about one of the greatest all-rounders ever. Botham was less a specialist than a transformer - bending to what England needed, whether as a hard-hitting batter or a bowler leading the attack. England could change their lineups because Botham existed. He added more runs and wickets just by playing.

See how he explains how an all rounder who doesn't particularly excell in certain disciplines brings value to the team?

2. Fitting the team better is a basic concept. Hint Hint, it's similar to why Gilchrist crushes Knott, the secondary discipline is diminishing returns at one point. You don't exactly need a Hadlee or whatever at number 10 when you have Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Viv, Sobers and Gilchrist as your top seven, the batting resources are ridiculous and allow you to focus on solely bowling. This doesn't exist in the real world, mostly batting lineups that are average are aided by extra boosts down the order, South Africa throughout the 90s commonly fielded lineups that weren't so good but stll succeeded regardless because they had a strong tail that often waggled.

It's a simple concept, for example, in a slip cordon when you have Hammond/Kallis/Sobers, you don't need to put in Viv anymore, doesn't mean Viv's not a great slip and that doesn't add to his legacy, but simply you don't need another ATG slip fielder. That's how all time XIs work, they are ludicrously loaded with resources so at a point the secondary disciplines simply don't matter anymore, that's not the case in the real world.

On the matter of if they make the team better, they do make teams better, they make real teams better because their secondary discipline is extremely valuable to real teams.


It isn't, Gavaskar is picked over Kallis in any XI post WWII, Gavaskar and Hutton would open. Doesn't mean Gavaskar was a better Cricketer than Kallis, not very close at all. Sachin is picked over Hammond generally, Hammond obviously the better Cricketer.

They fit better because the secondary of Hadlee or Imran are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic presence of resources in all three facets of the sport, in an average team, where the tail runs would mean more, especially in close games, the all rounders have higher value.

Basically, the all rounders add more value in real teams and the specialists can be picked in fictional teams.


Lower order batting is highly valued outside here, there is a reason Jadeja is such a highly regarded player, Stokes too though he isn't lower order. It's only you who on the basis of some subjective lists have started a failing crusade against all rounders.


Ofcourse not, you're not aiming for anything. You don't have Toki Toki no mi, you can't manipulate time to bring all the Cricketers here to make all time XIs, you have to go by what happened in real world, and in real world most ATGs are judged on what they can do for real teams, which are normally average. I already gave you an example, Botham won't do much in an ATG XI clash, certainly won't be picked ahead of any great specialist, yet he is an elite Cricketer who often beats dozens of specialists and is often only beaten by the top ten of specialists.


They are not.

Wicket keeping comes under fielding, by this logic Ricky Ponting was an all rounder in comparison to most outfielders, he fielded in the slips which is a prominent fielding positions, just like keeping. I've never seen a wicket keeper be regarded as an all rounder, by that logic every slip fielder is an all rounder. look at ICC rankings, they don't count keepers as all rounders either. Keeping is fielding + extra steps.



History gave us a template indeed, and so does the present. Face it, in normal teams, the strength of tails is obvious and undeniable, as long as you don't have 5-6 ATG batsmen, the tails have value, as shown by how Australia with the strongest batting lineup in history were consistently being bailed out by the tail.

This is literally so simple, better batting = good, you're being silly if you sacrifice huge batting gains for negligible bowling gains.


No normal team in the history of this great sport is picking Sachin over Hammond unless they are led by ORS or AA, literally it's just a silly take.

Top 5 batsman + nothing bowler + average fielder + nothing captain vs Top 10 batsman + good seamer + reliable spinner both ways + the greatest slip fielder in history of the game + reliable captain. It can't be more obvious.


Lillee makes more XIs than Marshall too, by almost twice as many, but alas you don't actually believe in these methods when they stop aiding your favourites


Nobody is an idiot for having a preference of Cricketers, it's just not that serious a matter eh? but they are gullible and easily impressed. Akram averages 24-25 without a New Zealand so awful I'd argue they were worse than the West Indies batting line-up of the 30s and he bowled to them in very helpful conditions, great bowler and all but he was less effective than McGrath, Ambrose and Donald from his own generation.


Not really, Imran got more votes than Hadlee in the ATXI book that Peterhrt posted, and matched Hadlee in the Wsiden 100 too. Imran is rated on his numbers and that's an issue as it's pretty obvious he was a better bowler than his numbers indicate. They are hampered by the years he played as a batting all rounder (1989-1991) and the years he spent as a student who could only play a few games for Pakistan as he was studying in England.

Between 1976 and mid 1989, Imran averaged 21.44 with the ball, with New Zealand, India and England making flat pitches desperately to stop him (it didn't work mostly) while also making 28 runs a dig with the bat.


More skilled just means more tricks, these pretentious ****s would write poems about Harry Brook if they saw his 186, it doesn't mean much. Imran didn't have elite fielding either, it's just more apparent and discussed with Wasim because footage of a lot of Imran's career isn't there.

Wasim is as far from Imran as a bowler, as Donald is from Steyn. Then you add Imran's far better batting and captaincy, not even in the same universe as cricketers.


Once again, you can win the test without taking twenty wickets, you can never win a Test without outscoring the opposition, you should know well, the match that haunts Sobers is one he lost despite England not taking twenty wickets, infact England won that match and the series without even taking ten wickets.

Nowhere does it say that you can ignore an opportunity to have a substantially stronger and more reliable batting line-up chasing a bowler who takes the same wickets with a single run average difference. Imran Khan isn't Maurice Tate, you aren't sacrificing much of bowling with him, the template talk is all cool and edgy until you realise it's a multi-faceted sport and you need batting to fire just as much as you need bowling to fire.


The point is to score more runs while also bowling them out, an equilibrium is needed. no point bowling them out for 300 twice if your team gets bowled out for 250 because nobody 7 down can score more than 5 runs. Therefore an Imran provided a lot more value than a McGrath.


Your entire belief bowling all rounders aren't given points for their batting goes against reality of basically every match that is played, please start following Cricket over reading what random writers and Kimber have to say, perhaps then you'll say why players like Jadeja are regarded as so good despite being a good bowler at best.

And Yes, Bowling all rounders have real value and it's shown in every match they play, no matter how much you may dislike it.

Ahh your second set of thoughts.

This one is a peach

Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played

As opposed to you who's sane? And the personification of objectivity and consistency?

That's your problem right there, you think you know more and better than anyone else. Yesterday I posted a video on the best cricketer among fast bowlers and your response is not that you disagree, but that they're flat out wrong to weight primary skill so highly. Yeah, why rate the primary reason why they're selected.

You've decided that everyone who disagrees with your extreme and quite frankly idiotic takes, are just swayed by aesthetics, aura or fore runners. You who has never faced an over of Test cricket in your life. But they're the zealots, right.

You who, because all time XIs don't agree with your "new" vision of how to build a team, state that after decades of doing them that they aren't representative of how a team is built, and as such invalid.

The Widsen vote was imperfect, highly partisan and fails in relevance very quickly the further down one goes. But the purpose was to deliber a top 5 and that's what it did, and we use accordingly.

Regarding ignoring actual impact, think it's you who have somehow confused combining numbers with impact.

Despite his batring average during the 80's Imran was still seen as behind Botham and Dev with the bat. Do you think there was a reason why?

Is it possible that not just spreadsheets tell the tale?

 

[Johan]

Sir Garfield St. Aubrun Sobers has been long and continuously rated as worst, the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time. Since 1966, as was noted by @peterhrt when he referneved the article written agaist him, there has been discussion and argument as to who was the better cricketer.
Up to yesterday I posted a video where it was clearly discussed as to why Sobers was rated as close to the perfect Cricketer, why there are literally articles titled who after Bradman and Sobers, it's why when Wisden chose their cricketers of the century that only two cricketers came out of the exercise head and shoulders ahead of the rest, and their place beyond repute.

Nobody disagrees with the notion that Garfield Sobers is the second greatest cricketer of all time, once again, you're evading the point by stating the obvious that we are all tired of hearing.

Sobers is agreed to be the second greatest cricketer ever, I agree too, it's conceptually the argument that batting all rounders can bridge a forty point gap but a bowling all rounder practically gets no points. Here is a statistical demonstration of your belief on this matter.

Sobers vs Bradman

• Primary Output = Sobers's primary output is hilariously inferior to Bradman. He makes 42-less-runs-per-dismissal than Bradman, 37 less runs-per-innings than Bradman, Bradman's number are about 1.73× of Sobers, that is the same mathematical gap that exists between the batting of Garfield Sobers and Ian Botham, a humongous gap.
• Secondary Output = Sobers takes about 1.47 wickets a dig, averages 34 with the ball, has good variety and use with the ball due to multiple forms of output.
• Tertiary Output = Sobers was an ATG slip, Bradman was a great cover.

Verdict: You believe these two to be roughly close to each other.

Hadlee vs McGrath

• Primary Output = McGrath takes a wicket at every 21.64 runs conceded, Hadlee takes a wicket at every 22.30 runs conceded, McGrath takes 2.32 wickets a dig, Hadlee takes 2.87 wickets a dig, for reference, McGrath's WPI is closer to Miller's than to Hadlee's. Hadlee did for a weak team but perhaps it influened his WPI positively and McGrath having support influenced his average positively. McGrath did it more in a very flat batting era so maybe he's a bit ahead overall.
• Secondary Output = McGrath is a pure #11, Hadlee is a decent enough #8 or maybe even #7, capable of holding end and scoring valuable runs fast, makes around 20 or so more runs a dig than McGrath
• Tertiary Output = Neither are notable fielders.

Verdict: You complain about Hadlee being rated higher.

Kallis vs Tendulkar

• Primary Output = Kallis averages 2 points higher, about the same with no minnows. Tendulkar is obviously ahead as a batsman due to 90s heroics, while Kallis also coped with the toughest wickets in the world at home. Overall, Kallis's match impact with the bat is maybe a little inferior
• Secondary Output = Kallis takes a wicket a dig and averages 32 with the ball.
• Tertiary Output = Kallis is one of the GOAT slips, Sachin is ordinary.

Verdict = Tendulkar is better and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise.

Basically, your views are all over the place. You don't seem ready to decide if tertiary and secondary disciplines matter, but with Sobers they matter to the point you're ready to argue he can surpass someone tiers beyond the other. It's all over the place and frankly incoherent, you simultaneously think Sobers due to primary can challenge ****ing Bradman while Imran, who is frankly very marginally inferior to say Tendulkar in primary, cannot surpass Tendulkar despite averaging 37/38 accross career and 33/34 accross a bowling phase where he was qualitatively elite. It's just ridiculous.

There's a two man (three if cricket in general) pantheon of the sport, there's no need for there to be two people, and there wouldn't be if they weren't similarly rated.

To suggest that one can't be compared to the other speaks to a need to need to suggest that one doesn't belong in the pantheon and that's not you call to make.

That's not how it works

To make a pantheon you just have to clearly be above everyone else, not be close to each other. Bradman and Sobers being in a pantheon of cricketing greats just means their places are safe, Bradman is 1 and Sobers is 2, while there is a fight for three here and outside here.

If someone averaged 75 in the 2000s, they would be in the pantheon too, just not close at all to Bradman. Same with Sobers. Sobers isn't close to Bradman just because he is considered objectively the greatest Cricketer after Bradman.

Viv, like Savhin, like Hobbs, who I all have kn the same tier, least someone think I have Viv ahead of them somehow, are all multiple tiers above Botham, and that's beciase they're all top 5 batsmen of all time and that sets a platform that Botham can't overcome. He's neither a top 20 batsman nor bowler and two substandard skills together doesn't overcome one great one.

Sobers is arguably the 2nd or 3rd best batsman of all time, Richards top 5, Botham figures I assume somewhere outside of the top 50? If you want to belive that he's closer to the top 5 than Bradman is to Hobbs, Sobers, Richards and Tendulkar, then that's entirely up to you.

Botham top-50? Yeah, not even close.

When I made a list, the 50th best batsman of all time was Stanley McCabe, he'd be lucky to be top hundred considering McCabe is at 50 and he was a bloody brilliant batsman, about Greenidge level.

Though it doesn't matter, Who would the 100th best batsman of all time be? Michael Atherton? he averages 37.70, Viv Richards averages 50 odd, Bradman 99.94. Bradman averages almost twice as much as Viv, Viv averages 1.33× as much as Atherton, do your math and Viv is obviously closer to Atherton than he is to Bradman as far as batsmanship goes. Same with Sobers too, microfactors might make Sobers vs Viv close, but Sobers also ultimately averages closer to Atherton than to Bradman by a huge margin.

Viv averages 50, Botham 33, that's a ratio of 1.5 in the same era, much less than the ratio between Bradman and Compton/Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Barrington etc. Basically, Bradman is god. No one else comes close in Tests.

But as peterhrt and @Jane Austen have recently pointed out, the best way to evaluate a cricketer is to also look at how they were rated by their peers and those who saw them in action. Stats have never told the entire story.

I've never seen Peter relish the sentiment, but I do not care. I already read far more than you do, testimonies about Cricketers, match reports, analysing interesting matches or innings or spells, I also hear from others when they have something interesting to tell (IE tell me what X bowled or bowling in said spell where they didn't get away with great results but bowled terrific) and so forth, I don't need to take their evaluation of a career seriously. There's a difference between developing opinions from information you gather and gathering your opinions from the opinions of others.

Those who saw both Bradman and Hobbs rated them very much in the same tier, even if Bradman was slightly ahead. It's only when those voices faded away that the "Bradman was twice as good as everyone else" chat started, far less gained traction.

I've already told you, this is because Bradman had a weakness on wet wickets and never played on the Test level on mattings, Hobbs was considered more flawless due to mastering a higher number of super challenging conditions and having no weaknesses. This doesn't translate well, infact in a Herbert Sutcliffe vs Barry Richards thread, you tried to downplay and dismiss the prior's heroics on stickies on the basis of "they don't exist anymore", so if you go by that logic, Hobbs is tiers above Sachin because the prior is proven on turf wickets while Sachin is unproven on and never tested by a sticky or a matting.

This brings up Hobbs, it doesn't lower Bradman to a human range.

You can also continue to deny that as long as you wish, but again, that too is up to you..

I've never denied it, I've simply chosen to contextualise it, you refuse to see the context of a belief and just present it, expecting us to accept it absentmindedly.

Revisionist history occurs when the eyewitnesses disappear and is quite common in our sport. You try it daily.

Actually No. My beliefs are actually a lot more traditionalist and reality based than your view of "bowling all rounders are a scam", which is actually an attempt to rewrite an entire category of cricketers as overrated and contradict the fundamentals of the sport like more runs being better.

 

[Johan]

As opposed to you who's sane? And the personification of objectivity and consistency?

Ofcourse, I never claimed to be more objective. Though one thing I am is consistent, I do change things but my criteria of rating Cricketers is pretty consistent, I don't just alter my criterias because it ends with someone I dislike being rated higher than someone I like. Like how you value all-rounders of one kind and not others? we all know why.

Now, I never claimed to be more objective or know more cricket than them, I claimed their opinions shouldn't influence yours, being convinced by someone is one thing, being a parrot is another. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if someone formed their views because "Well Johan thinks it..." It would be absolutely asinine, comparing them with me is not a great idea. Now if an historian makes a case then yes, that argument has to be considered, debated against or so forth, but an opinion of anyone does not deserve credence for simply existing.

That's your problem right there, you think you know more and better than anyone else. Yesterday I posted a video on the best cricketer among fast bowlers and your response is not that you disagree, but that they're flat out wrong to weight primary skill so highly. Yeah, why rate the primary reason why they're selected.

Not at all. My response was they were measuring it in a different way, and that Kimber didn't claim that Marshall is a better cricketer than Imran, just that the criteria they made for 10/10 fast bowler was so that Marshall and Bumrah had an advantage for "having mastered every type of delivery by a fast bowler", that's it. I never said it's a bad criteria, just said that they never made a claim that they did not make.

What I did critique was the exact opposite, implying that Ashwin/Shakib are somewhat in the conversation with Warne and Murali, if anything I did the exact opposite of what you're saying, and suggested the specialist Tiger O'Reilly deserved to be in the conversation way over those two. I guess you are not interested in mentioning that part as it does not fit your narrative.

You've decided that everyone who disagrees with your extreme and quite frankly idiotic takes, are just swayed by aesthetics, aura or fore runners. You who has never faced an over of Test cricket in your life. But they're the zealots, right.

You realise that literally yesterday you said a Cricketer, who played for years and played ten tests, doesn't know what he's talking about because he talked highly of Botham?


In comparison to who? You and Kimber, neither have ever played a first class match, let alone Tests. Same with Woodcock, you claimed his entire list was discredited because he placed Compton at 10.

I want to be clear, I neither agree with Bumble on Botham being a 10/10 Cricketer nor Woodcock's list, I don't agree with Benaud's all time XI either, nor do I agree with all the others writers and cricketers who you've ridiculed in the past for their beliefs. But I make it clear that I do not care for such things and make my views independently from opinions of others, but from all the information I gather, you're willing to be just as dismissive of Cricketers and writers as I am when they are in an opposition to your views but also weaponise the same concept when it is in support of a belief you have, you use this to complain about others having differing views due to various reasons.

Frankly, the difference here is that I'm consistent that these things are fun to read and talk about but shouldn't be used to formulate opinions or forced upon anyone, I see them as what they are, one of the many sources of potential information, and if not that then just a source of interesting Cricketing discussion. You attempt to weaponise it into a way to hammer beliefs in head of others while being just as dismissive of them when they are peddling beliefs you disagree with.

You who, because all time XIs don't agree with your "new" vision of how to build a team, state that after decades of doing them that they aren't representative of how a team is built, and as such invalid.

I never claimed All time XIs are invalid as an excercise, just that they could not be used to denote the greater cricketer because of the concept of team composition, I've given many examples of why, I don't care further to consistently justify a basic belief to you that has been around forever.

I don't have a "new belief", it is a super basic concept. Notice how you consistently rant about people who don't think higher probability of making an all time XI = Better cricketer, are people with hidden agendas and are tailoring their views to their opinions rather than vice versa, but you never refute the argument? It's because you can't and you know that very well, therefore you attempt to poison the well and belittle people for believing in something that's fairly evident. Please, either refute it or stop whining about it.

The Widsen vote was imperfect, highly partisan and fails in relevance very quickly the further down one goes. But the purpose was to deliber a top 5 and that's what it did, and we use accordingly.

If something is highly partisaned, imperfect and fails in relevance as an overall list, you should not cite specific parts of it that you agree with. This is a great example, from the same list you are receptive of the section you agree with but dismissive of the one you disagree with, almost like the credibility of the writers and all went out the window after the top five when they started rating Hadlee higher than Marshall.

It's very obvious what your position on peer reception is.

Regarding ignoring actual impact, think it's you who have somehow confused combining numbers with impact.

Despite his batring average during the 80's Imran was still seen as behind Botham and Dev with the bat. Do you think there was a reason why?

Kapil wasn't, at best the opinion on them before 88 was they were on a similar level with the bat, Imran was more technically proficient while Kapil was more destructive, Imran had a better technique but Kapil had better shots. I've never seen it portrayed as a slam dunk in Kapil's favour, have always seen arguments for both parties.

Botham is more impactful as he had far more winning knocks, and had as many hundreds as Imran and Kapil combined, I would rate Imran and Kapil pretty similarly with the bat with Botham clearly beyond them.

Is it possible that not just spreadsheets tell the tale?

Ofcourse not.

There is so much in Cricket analysis. Reading and learning about specific weaknesses, performance across conditions, the condition of the wicket even on the day the knock is played, the physical condition of a cricketer, the good luck (catch drops for batsmen) and the bad one (catch drops for bowlers), the circumstances of your arrival, the impact of a particular knock on a given match and so forth. There's a reason guys like Stokes and Laxman are highly valued as players.

 

[kyear2]

It's just the hilarity of this position that irks most users honestly.

Sobers, who averages 57 and 34 with the ball, is now somehow close to Bradman enough for an argument to be made on who is better, it's just the sheer brainrot of it. While Botham, a much better bowler than Sobers, averaged 35 with the bat, is no contest to Viv at all. Let me rephrase, Botham is much closer as a batsman to Viv than Sobers is to Bradman, and he's a far better bowler than Sobers, yet Botham is nowhere near Viv. Same with Marshall, botham the bowler is much closer to Marshall the bowler than Sobers the batsman is to Bradman the batsman, would you entertain an argument of Botham over Marshall? obviously not.

It's pretty obvious what this Sobers and Bradman stance of yours actually is.


1. Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played. Also, that doesn't mean they rate Sobers on par with Bradman just because they agree he is second to Bradman, everyone here does that too.

2. This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

3. Nah, it's still, at the end of the day, 34 averaging bowling. There are peaks there, match winning spells, and variety but it always rounds up to a pretty decent bowler and nothing more. Give me Miller's batting

Your position still makes absolutely zero sense, you're willing to overcome 43 point of average gap, and a ratio of 1.73 which is the same as the ratio between Tendulkar and Crawley, because of some good bowling and some great slip catching. Yet Hammond and Kallis are below Sachin despite averaging more than him, being 35 and 37 averaging bowlers respectively (though less workload) and being just as good in the slips as Sobers. Frankly, it's nonsense, if Sobers is a challenger to Bradman, then someone like Stokes is straight up clearly better than Sachin.


Healy keeping Gilly out was a mistake.

Frankly speaking, you're just in denial here. Any and all modern teams would pick the wicket keeper who bats better, now if the batting line-up has the place for both then ofcourse, both will be picked. But given the option between Ben Foakes and Risabh Pant? basically no lineup is picking Foakes, same with Healy who won't be picked ahead of Pant. The reality is most keeper average under 35, so Healy who was averaging 29 or so in a hard era would get picked in most teams but South Africa in 2016-2021 weren't trading De Kock for Healy, and Pakistan aren't trading Rizwan for Healy. It should be obvious, these guys are excelling in facets of the sport that matter a lot more, a QDK hundred from a clutch position is worth more than Healy taking 95% of chances rather than QDK taking 85% of chances.

At one point, after a keeper becomes great, the margin of help you get from a truly elite keeper is small, at that point you'd just take the much better batsman because frankly Cricket games are won through batting and bowling while keeping's value is solely to help the bowlers out somewhat.


Sobers being a rival to Bradman is not an accepted stance, it's Ian Chappell (who never saw Bradman) saying something that Keith Miller also apparently said.

Now, it has to be noted

1. Keith Miller and Don Bradman had multiple, relatively high profile feuds with each other. Bradman hated Miller and vice versa, so we can't take his word on this matter objectively.
2. Chappell too, had a beef with Bradman due to big disagreements about pay and Bradman's adminstrative qualities, once again, meaning he can't be taken all that seriously.

You cited biased testimony on this matter to make your opinion seem less of an unicorn, and honestly, I won't even care if you weren't so hilariously inconsistent with it. Sobers is a challenger to Bradman but Hammond is below Tendulkar? lol.

Regarding primary disciplines, there's some revisionism about Sobers the batsman, not that I personally disagree as I see Sobers as the fifth or sixth greatest batsman in history, but I have to say that you guys rate him higher than he actually was in the time as a bat alone. As a batsman alone, The excellent Rohan Kanhai was seen as an equal or rival to Sobers for much of their careers, atleast until the 1966 England tour, many believed Hammond and Weekes to be better batsmen including Cardus, Hutton and Bradman. Graeme Pollock was also seen as an equal for much of their career overlap.

All in all, obviously Sobers is elite, but him being the best ever candidate with the bat alone is similar to Hadlee, it's obvious but it's weird how you're one of the main propagators of one and a hater for the other.


Crazy how Hutton is better than both Sobers and Richards

maybe if he had the same playing style as Compton, and god horbid, the same playing style as one of the bazballers, he would be rated that way.

Anyway, there wasn't and most probably isn't a definitive consensus that Sobers was a better batsman than Hammond, even here where multiple users think Hammond was a better batsman but here it's mostly commonly accepted that Sobers is a better batsman, it would soon be the same with Smith as well, there is no divinally ordained top 4 after Bradman.


Lol, lmao even.

As someone who swears to adhere to the traditional views and what was considered objective, you're willing to go against them the moment it's a player you subjectively disagree with. Completely hilarious. Anyway, considering you on your own individuality are attempting to eliminate one of these four players, and have spent over a decade on this forum discrediting Barnes because of frankly what's an issue on your end, clearly we can just ignore this "consensus" the same way you do when it's a Cricketer you dislike, and one who you would whine about in the very next sentence.

Regarding you not knowing what Barnes bowled, that's just cause you have dug your head in the sand. We all know what Barnes bowled, and just for reference it doesn't mean we were there but we know by the same means we know the Roman Empire existed, by ****ing reading. Barnes bowled medium pace, relied on late swing both ways and huge cutters, he was exactly the same kind of bowler as Tate and Bedser, we all know that, you're just yet to catch up.

I have also posted images of how far he kept the slips in the past
View attachment 53385
Kindly stop coping about Barnes, it's beyond obvious what he bowled, you're just being willfully obtuse to be contradictory to your own methodology for a complete BS reason.


This is not a flex, you're basically saying you allow cricinfo or Wisden to dictate your opinions even though for your own personal reasons, you disagree with the said assessment. That just means you're suffering from a lack of self, which is pathetic, not great.


lol with both the English players, you've complained in one way or the other. With Barnes, you've used your personal willingness to dig your head in the sand as a reason he shouldn't be in the top ten bowlers or whatever. With Hobbs, it's tamer but you've put an asterisk on his entire peak.

With Bradman, you don't really have a choice but you have also consistently complained about it because of your dumb perception of the Cricket he played and have clearly expressed an irrational desire to shorten the gap between him and the BAB candidates. You also whine about Warne. The only three you are unequivocally in support of are those three and McGrath, I wonder why.

Anyway, there is no way Hammond matches Imran on secondary. Hammond's bowling, is at best, equivalent to Hadlee's batting while his slip fielding is elite, Imran winning on both primary and secondary means Imran is in general ahead of him. Imran also beats Kallis on both primary and secondary, clearly on primary this time (as clear as Lara vs Kallis) and secondary too. Imran doesn't have a tertiary, but he is a bowler which means automatically greater impact, and he is one of the great captains who handpicked and mentored people like Wasim and Waqar and had a huge positive effect on his country's cricket.


There are two reasons I took over here

The first is simple, I joined a debating tournament on another site, and have to knock off the cogwebs and build some writing time, so a big debate seemed fun to have, call it practise.

The second is this nonsense.

Nobody has ever claimed all ARs are superior to all non-Bradman specialists, it has literally never happened. The ARs thread was made by Subshakerz and not by him or me. The claim is that the great all rounders are greater than the great specialists simply because they are. The fact that you've gotten this mad that people would take someone like Kallis or Hammond over Viv or Sachin says a lot. Someone like Sachin would hypothetically make one or two runs per innings more than someone like Hammond, but would take a hundred or 150 less wickets than Hammond over career (let's say 200 matches for both), And let's not even discuss Kallis who would have like 250 more wickets, and then comes the slip fielding where Sachin is not even in the same rung as other two.

The fact the concept of someone picking 300 wickets over an extra 1000 runs, and consistent bowling spells, annoys you this much is just insane.


I think @subshakerz has done a good job of showing Imran is ahead of Marshall in more lists.

Lists from randos don't dictate greatness, Miller doesn't need to be in some lists to beat down Richards.


That won't make a difference. If anything they will get crushed even harder, McGrath was a respectable but hardly impressive outfielder who was the definition of a nothing burger batsman, Tendulkar was a bowler with potential but one who eventually averaged 55 with the ball, was a non-remarkable slip and a nothing captain. It's pointless to compare them to Imran or Miller.


Yeah, No.

You picked a specific example of a team with passable bowling and unacceptable batting. I can do the same too, the Indian team of the 2000s would take Miller comfortably and Miller would be regarded as the god of Cricket because they need stronger bowling, same in the 1980s. Miller is a better Cricketer because over a similar career course, Viv would get 50 runs per dismissal and Miller about 38 runs per dismissal, over the course of 300 dismissals Viv would have around 4k more runs, but Miller in 300 innings would have over 530 wickets, 78% of that top order wickets which is way more valuable than a few thousand extra runs. A world class opening seamer + a 38 averaging batsman > a 50 averaging batsman. what are we doing here? there is no reason to overcomplicate it, Miller as a Cricketer is extremely high value.

As Kimber explained, Miller allows you to pick an extra Cricketer by doing the job of both the #5/#6 batsman, a frontline slip and an opening bowler.

Imran is destructive accross conditions, with winning spells bowled everywhere, an ability to tackle an immense amount of workload as well. He quite literally invented the school of bowling often used by the great flat or dead track bowlers that came after him, Steyn in particular. As arguably a top three user of reverse swing and his willingness to tackle a high workload, literally all of this is applicable for him, he just averages one point higher than
McGrath and that's it.


Even in his bowling all rounder phase, Imran had 28 RPI.

Saying a strong number 8 or 9 don't have influence is cope and denial, it's literally just that. It's denial of the obvious reality. For example, Imran is a much better batsman than Shaun Pollock and even Pollock regularly influenced games, You've been presented with many examples where even Hadlee effected the game with the bat, and many examples of both the mighty West Indies and the Golden Australian team being aided or bailed out by lower order. A strong tail has always been and will always be a factor, teams with weak tails struggle with tight chases, close draws and so forth.

Also, it's just a broad strengthening of the batting lineup. Unlike bowling, where the seventh best bowler of the team might never get the ball, atleast on sporting pitches, all eleven players always bat and try to contribute with the bat, it's just better to have a stronger batting lineup, I can't believe I have to say this.


The batting today is just the same thing as five decades ago was compared to seven decades ago. The introduction of Limited-overs Cricket means that fundamentally players are going to score faster, a similar thing happened in the 70s and 80s after the introduction of One Day Cricket in comparison to 50s and 60s, and players from the past thought this players to be technically bunk. Hutton thought a similar thing for Viv and Gower types as we do for Brook and Jaiswal types. Hutton had bar for bar the same reservations we do about Brook or Jaiswal today, like missing a straight one and not looking as reliable and correct to him.

View attachment 53386
View attachment 53387
Literally word for word what people say about modern batsmen, "might miss a straight one", "reliant on eyes, footwork and power rather than straight correct technique", "would like to him play a quality <insert random bowler type>" and so forth. It's a very common concept and is present in all eras of Cricket. Today is the same to the 00s/90s what the 70s/80s were to the 50s. ODI Cricket made batsmen more aggressive, they still scored the same amount of runs and were better strokemakers than their predecessors on average but worse technicans, not T20 is another evolution to the concept where the current batsmen are probably the most advanced they have ever been in strokeplay with a decline in technique and grafting.

You're also misrepresenting the view point of many when you say we like slower scoring more, we don't. The point is both lower and higher scorings have value, and therefore I don't believe we should think about strike rates when rating cricketers. Your side on this matter is uncompromising, and frankly seems arrogant about their belief of strike rate relevance. I respect someone from the pro-SR side a lot, but rest be assured if users like Subs or PC had the same unearned and unnecessarily arrogant attitude as some of you on this matter, it won't go down well. Also I'm not the progenitor of being anti-SR relevance, Coronis and PEWS were doing that years before me.

I even conceded already that a Cricketer, who has higher range, and can play both like Boycott or Brook, deserves credit for their versatility. I give credit to people like Root and Sangakkara to have so much range to their scoring rate, it is you who wants us to condemn one type of one dimensionality (Bruce Mitchell) while simultaneously another kind of one dimensionality (Sehwag), your view isn't some irrefutable truth.

Why is an unwillingness to do something a negative? like seriously? Shiv played slow but we knew he could accelerate, in certain conditions the lack of the ability to slow things down is a negative, like it was for the West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final. One dimensionality is a negative, but when a player like Chanderpaul or Dravid can accelerate from their tempo, it ceases to be an issue, the same way when a player like Viv or Weekes show they can slow down, their tempos are not an issue anymore either.

The only way a consenting adult batsman playing slowly can be a negative is when it's to the detriment of the team and they don't have the match awareness to realise when to accelerate, which OBVIOUSLY isn't the case with most of the low SR players.

About it being harder, it's not universally true, sure for the average batsman it's hard but there are plenty of players who would find blocking 90 overs tougher than making the same amount of runs within 30 overs, especially today.


Slip catching is obviously an important skill, it's just frustrating the amount of value you put on it.

You once said Mark Taylor's slip fielding is more valuable than Kapil Dev, what a stance that was! For example, Kapil Dev makes 30 runs a dig batting 7 or 8, that's a good 10 or so runs extra from the normal number 7 and number 8 since the second war, would Taylor be a better player if he made those extra runs and multiple more centuries, or with his slip catching? the answer is obvious.

Slips are a tertiary position, they are important but not that important, if Slip fielding was truly as important as lower order batting or fifth bowler bowling, someone like Junior would be seen as on par with Senior, or someone like Ponting would be seen as better than Tendulkar at the very least.

The Cordon is a three man job, fifth bowler is a one man job generally, obviously the value of an entire cordon of three or four players would exceed the singular secondary discipline value of players, but you make the mistake of conflating the value of the entire cordon with singular players. Saying all great teams had great cordons is obviously true, it's also true that all great teams had great batting and bowling too, great opening duos of bowlers or great opening duos of batsmen. A great team is a great team because it excells in all three dimensions of the games, cordon is just one of them, nobody ever said a bad fielding side can be ATG.


I mean ofcourse, you should always pick the best bowling lineup, but for an average side, someone like Miller isn't a number 8 batsman, he is 5 or 6, he is also the best bowler or second best bowler in a team on average and thus you barely sacrifice anything by picking someone like him.

Anyway, obviously you want to pick your best bowling lineup, but you also don't want to sacrifice the batting, obviously a number 9 or 10 bowler should be picked for bowling, you pick a Jasprit Bumrah over a Vernon Philander everytime even though the latter bats way better but it's also simultaneously true that the gap between the great bowlers, especially the top ten, is negligible.

Picking Imran for bowling doesn't mean much, nobody is a much better bowler than Imran, the gap between them is negligible and an extra 10-20 runs a dig is certainly more valuable than miniscule bowling gaps. Especially someone like Hadlee, frankly there is no bowling gap between Hadlee/McGrath/Marshall, it's just a matter of finding one's arguments more viable, at that point there's no reason to leave the extra 20 runs a dig that Hadlee offers for a frankly non-existent gap.

PEWS said that yes, but Considering the standard for keeper bats and averages was 25 and lower generally for majority of Cricket history the value of bowling AR is high. Especially with someone like you, who fully advocates for Knott or Healy or even Evans sometimes, in that case the value gap between Imran and Marshall historically would increase. Even today, teams regularly field Buttler (31), Veryenne (30), Dickwella (31), Haddin (29) etc types, you still need bowling ARs.


1. Indeed, exactly why Kallis is a better player than Sachin. Sachin would give an extra 1000 run over the course of a long career, the extra 200-300 wickets Kallis would take, often times valuable partnerships, some four or wicket hauls in helpful conditions, bowl dry overs to buy time for the main pacers and so forth, are far more valuable than an extra two runs per innings. The same with Hammond.

2. Largely due to workload where it's Sobers >>> Kallis >> Hammond.


One Great slip fielding is not surpassing the value of a good lower order batsman or a good fifth bowler, an entire Cordon? for sure.

You made Assuming all things equal, a 8-11 of Miller, Imran, Botham and Jadeja (bowling ARs with strong secondary disciplimes) is winning you way more matches with an average slip cordon, than a slip cordon of Viv/Hammond/Soners are winning you with an average 8-11 tail. It's not that close. Their contributions are very comsistent and valuable.

Also, Root is a solid slip fielder, even they do drops sometimes.

View attachment 53380
Basically, batting is more important than fielding, complex I know.


The list being garbage is not relevant, your entire position is based upon "well they don't make all time XIS!!!", well, most of the all time XIs are also regarded as garbage on this forum, yet that doesn't mean you don't cite them. How can you dismiss lists while simultaneously citing XIs that are similarly silly.

Until the 80s, Larwood would make every single England XI and Trueman would make about none, who would you and collectively the entire forum vote as frankly the greater bowler? the answer is very obvious.


It's not.

An all time XI is overflowing with resources in all three dimensions of the game.

For example, Miller would open the bowling in 99% of the teams historically, might be every team ever minus the 80s West Indies. He won't get in a million mile radius of the new ball in an all time XI that has McGrath, Barnes and Marshall. In a conventional team, he would be allowed to show his full impact by taking the new ball and batting 5 or 6, therefore the latter is a better measure of his abilities as a cricketer.

As Imran said in his book, he believes these comparisons are weird because every team has their own requirements, if Botham played for West Indies in the 90s, there's no way he gets the new ball, or even the semi new ball if Bishop is around. That West Indies team, or the South African team pre Bavuma, would benefit more from having a Boycott than a Botham, is Boycott a better player? No. It's just team composition, the value of a Cricketer shows best when they are in an ordinary team and their own impact is higher.


1. Can you show me anyone claiming you should overlook vast batting differences in favour of minute bowling differences? Kimber in particular has an interesting view of all rounders

In a good Test team, Botham was at best a fringe pick as a batter or bowler. Most strong batting sides wouldn’t need him, and as a bowler, he’d only fit in specific attacks.

Yet I say this about one of the greatest all-rounders ever. Botham was less a specialist than a transformer - bending to what England needed, whether as a hard-hitting batter or a bowler leading the attack. England could change their lineups because Botham existed. He added more runs and wickets just by playing.

See how he explains how an all rounder who doesn't particularly excell in certain disciplines brings value to the team?

2. Fitting the team better is a basic concept. Hint Hint, it's similar to why Gilchrist crushes Knott, the secondary discipline is diminishing returns at one point. You don't exactly need a Hadlee or whatever at number 10 when you have Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Viv, Sobers and Gilchrist as your top seven, the batting resources are ridiculous and allow you to focus on solely bowling. This doesn't exist in the real world, mostly batting lineups that are average are aided by extra boosts down the order, South Africa throughout the 90s commonly fielded lineups that weren't so good but stll succeeded regardless because they had a strong tail that often waggled.

It's a simple concept, for example, in a slip cordon when you have Hammond/Kallis/Sobers, you don't need to put in Viv anymore, doesn't mean Viv's not a great slip and that doesn't add to his legacy, but simply you don't need another ATG slip fielder. That's how all time XIs work, they are ludicrously loaded with resources so at a point the secondary disciplines simply don't matter anymore, that's not the case in the real world.

On the matter of if they make the team better, they do make teams better, they make real teams better because their secondary discipline is extremely valuable to real teams.


It isn't, Gavaskar is picked over Kallis in any XI post WWII, Gavaskar and Hutton would open. Doesn't mean Gavaskar was a better Cricketer than Kallis, not very close at all. Sachin is picked over Hammond generally, Hammond obviously the better Cricketer.

They fit better because the secondary of Hadlee or Imran are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic presence of resources in all three facets of the sport, in an average team, where the tail runs would mean more, especially in close games, the all rounders have higher value.

Basically, the all rounders add more value in real teams and the specialists can be picked in fictional teams.


Lower order batting is highly valued outside here, there is a reason Jadeja is such a highly regarded player, Stokes too though he isn't lower order. It's only you who on the basis of some subjective lists have started a failing crusade against all rounders.


Ofcourse not, you're not aiming for anything. You don't have Toki Toki no mi, you can't manipulate time to bring all the Cricketers here to make all time XIs, you have to go by what happened in real world, and in real world most ATGs are judged on what they can do for real teams, which are normally average. I already gave you an example, Botham won't do much in an ATG XI clash, certainly won't be picked ahead of any great specialist, yet he is an elite Cricketer who often beats dozens of specialists and is often only beaten by the top ten of specialists.


They are not.

Wicket keeping comes under fielding, by this logic Ricky Ponting was an all rounder in comparison to most outfielders, he fielded in the slips which is a prominent fielding positions, just like keeping. I've never seen a wicket keeper be regarded as an all rounder, by that logic every slip fielder is an all rounder. look at ICC rankings, they don't count keepers as all rounders either. Keeping is fielding + extra steps.



History gave us a template indeed, and so does the present. Face it, in normal teams, the strength of tails is obvious and undeniable, as long as you don't have 5-6 ATG batsmen, the tails have value, as shown by how Australia with the strongest batting lineup in history were consistently being bailed out by the tail.

This is literally so simple, better batting = good, you're being silly if you sacrifice huge batting gains for negligible bowling gains.


No normal team in the history of this great sport is picking Sachin over Hammond unless they are led by ORS or AA, literally it's just a silly take.

Top 5 batsman + nothing bowler + average fielder + nothing captain vs Top 10 batsman + good seamer + reliable spinner both ways + the greatest slip fielder in history of the game + reliable captain. It can't be more obvious.


Lillee makes more XIs than Marshall too, by almost twice as many, but alas you don't actually believe in these methods when they stop aiding your favourites


Nobody is an idiot for having a preference of Cricketers, it's just not that serious a matter eh? but they are gullible and easily impressed. Akram averages 24-25 without a New Zealand so awful I'd argue they were worse than the West Indies batting line-up of the 30s and he bowled to them in very helpful conditions, great bowler and all but he was less effective than McGrath, Ambrose and Donald from his own generation.


Not really, Imran got more votes than Hadlee in the ATXI book that Peterhrt posted, and matched Hadlee in the Wsiden 100 too. Imran is rated on his numbers and that's an issue as it's pretty obvious he was a better bowler than his numbers indicate. They are hampered by the years he played as a batting all rounder (1989-1991) and the years he spent as a student who could only play a few games for Pakistan as he was studying in England.

Between 1976 and mid 1989, Imran averaged 21.44 with the ball, with New Zealand, India and England making flat pitches desperately to stop him (it didn't work mostly) while also making 28 runs a dig with the bat.


More skilled just means more tricks, these pretentious ****s would write poems about Harry Brook if they saw his 186, it doesn't mean much. Imran didn't have elite fielding either, it's just more apparent and discussed with Wasim because footage of a lot of Imran's career isn't there.

Wasim is as far from Imran as a bowler, as Donald is from Steyn. Then you add Imran's far better batting and captaincy, not even in the same universe as cricketers.


Once again, you can win the test without taking twenty wickets, you can never win a Test without outscoring the opposition, you should know well, the match that haunts Sobers is one he lost despite England not taking twenty wickets, infact England won that match and the series without even taking ten wickets.

Nowhere does it say that you can ignore an opportunity to have a substantially stronger and more reliable batting line-up chasing a bowler who takes the same wickets with a single run average difference. Imran Khan isn't Maurice Tate, you aren't sacrificing much of bowling with him, the template talk is all cool and edgy until you realise it's a multi-faceted sport and you need batting to fire just as much as you need bowling to fire.


The point is to score more runs while also bowling them out, an equilibrium is needed. no point bowling them out for 300 twice if your team gets bowled out for 250 because nobody 7 down can score more than 5 runs. Therefore an Imran provided a lot more value than a McGrath.


Your entire belief bowling all rounders aren't given points for their batting goes against reality of basically every match that is played, please start following Cricket over reading what random writers and Kimber have to say, perhaps then you'll say why players like Jadeja are regarded as so good despite being a good bowler at best.

And Yes, Bowling all rounders have real value and it's shown in every match they play, no matter how much you may dislike it.

Your no. 2.

This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

Richard Hadlee, I have done lots of reading, looked at lots of all time XIs, even looked at lots of lists (your preferred metric for obvious reasons.

You think I'm trying to pull him down for some reason, but there's no evidence that was rated either by peers, historians or pundits as highly that you obviously do.

From your comments you rate him on par with Sobers, show me one article, one list, one video that rates that highly. It does not exists.

Here he's rated a pretty consistent 3rd or 4th (if Barnes is included), there's literally no evidence that he's rated that highly by those in the know.

There was an entire video i shared yesterday where he wasn't even in the consideration besides being arguably better than Lillee.

When batsmen speak of bowlers from the era he's 3rd or 4th, from his era. You will say it's because he wasn't express, neither is McGrath and his peer rating was considerably higher. Tou will say it's because he was from NZ, Martin Crowe wrote that Lillee, Marshall and were undoubtedly the best 3 bowlers of the era. He named his all time XI, Hadlee, even with the "batting advantage", made the 2nd team.

You belive he was the Hobbs of bowlers, show me the multiple articles, interviews and books that says this.

Show the articles,books, interviews that speaks to him being Sobers.

Your argument is that everyone at Wisden, everyone who's ever made an All Time XI, every batsman of the era who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't understand the game.

You've discovered the 3rd and 4th best cricketers of all time and somehow the rest of the cricketing community is just clueless.

You call Imran a top 7 fast bowler, that's basically where he's rated here, not including Barnes. Add the spinners and that's around 10th. Kimber said top 15, I'm somewhere in the middle of that. That's quite a bit to overtake 1st on primary IMO.

I do find the premise of the gap bwtwen Hobbs and Sobers being significantly large a bit interstsing considering most consider Sobers at worst to be a top 5 bat, and I rate him at worst to be toed with Viv and Sachin.

 

[kyear2]

It's just the hilarity of this position that irks most users honestly.

Sobers, who averages 57 and 34 with the ball, is now somehow close to Bradman enough for an argument to be made on who is better, it's just the sheer brainrot of it. While Botham, a much better bowler than Sobers, averaged 35 with the bat, is no contest to Viv at all. Let me rephrase, Botham is much closer as a batsman to Viv than Sobers is to Bradman, and he's a far better bowler than Sobers, yet Botham is nowhere near Viv. Same with Marshall, botham the bowler is much closer to Marshall the bowler than Sobers the batsman is to Bradman the batsman, would you entertain an argument of Botham over Marshall? obviously not.

It's pretty obvious what this Sobers and Bradman stance of yours actually is.


1. Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played. Also, that doesn't mean they rate Sobers on par with Bradman just because they agree he is second to Bradman, everyone here does that too.

2. This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

3. Nah, it's still, at the end of the day, 34 averaging bowling. There are peaks there, match winning spells, and variety but it always rounds up to a pretty decent bowler and nothing more. Give me Miller's batting

Your position still makes absolutely zero sense, you're willing to overcome 43 point of average gap, and a ratio of 1.73 which is the same as the ratio between Tendulkar and Crawley, because of some good bowling and some great slip catching. Yet Hammond and Kallis are below Sachin despite averaging more than him, being 35 and 37 averaging bowlers respectively (though less workload) and being just as good in the slips as Sobers. Frankly, it's nonsense, if Sobers is a challenger to Bradman, then someone like Stokes is straight up clearly better than Sachin.


Healy keeping Gilly out was a mistake.

Frankly speaking, you're just in denial here. Any and all modern teams would pick the wicket keeper who bats better, now if the batting line-up has the place for both then ofcourse, both will be picked. But given the option between Ben Foakes and Risabh Pant? basically no lineup is picking Foakes, same with Healy who won't be picked ahead of Pant. The reality is most keeper average under 35, so Healy who was averaging 29 or so in a hard era would get picked in most teams but South Africa in 2016-2021 weren't trading De Kock for Healy, and Pakistan aren't trading Rizwan for Healy. It should be obvious, these guys are excelling in facets of the sport that matter a lot more, a QDK hundred from a clutch position is worth more than Healy taking 95% of chances rather than QDK taking 85% of chances.

At one point, after a keeper becomes great, the margin of help you get from a truly elite keeper is small, at that point you'd just take the much better batsman because frankly Cricket games are won through batting and bowling while keeping's value is solely to help the bowlers out somewhat.


Sobers being a rival to Bradman is not an accepted stance, it's Ian Chappell (who never saw Bradman) saying something that Keith Miller also apparently said.

Now, it has to be noted

1. Keith Miller and Don Bradman had multiple, relatively high profile feuds with each other. Bradman hated Miller and vice versa, so we can't take his word on this matter objectively.
2. Chappell too, had a beef with Bradman due to big disagreements about pay and Bradman's adminstrative qualities, once again, meaning he can't be taken all that seriously.

You cited biased testimony on this matter to make your opinion seem less of an unicorn, and honestly, I won't even care if you weren't so hilariously inconsistent with it. Sobers is a challenger to Bradman but Hammond is below Tendulkar? lol.

Regarding primary disciplines, there's some revisionism about Sobers the batsman, not that I personally disagree as I see Sobers as the fifth or sixth greatest batsman in history, but I have to say that you guys rate him higher than he actually was in the time as a bat alone. As a batsman alone, The excellent Rohan Kanhai was seen as an equal or rival to Sobers for much of their careers, atleast until the 1966 England tour, many believed Hammond and Weekes to be better batsmen including Cardus, Hutton and Bradman. Graeme Pollock was also seen as an equal for much of their career overlap.

All in all, obviously Sobers is elite, but him being the best ever candidate with the bat alone is similar to Hadlee, it's obvious but it's weird how you're one of the main propagators of one and a hater for the other.


Crazy how Hutton is better than both Sobers and Richards

maybe if he had the same playing style as Compton, and god horbid, the same playing style as one of the bazballers, he would be rated that way.

Anyway, there wasn't and most probably isn't a definitive consensus that Sobers was a better batsman than Hammond, even here where multiple users think Hammond was a better batsman but here it's mostly commonly accepted that Sobers is a better batsman, it would soon be the same with Smith as well, there is no divinally ordained top 4 after Bradman.


Lol, lmao even.

As someone who swears to adhere to the traditional views and what was considered objective, you're willing to go against them the moment it's a player you subjectively disagree with. Completely hilarious. Anyway, considering you on your own individuality are attempting to eliminate one of these four players, and have spent over a decade on this forum discrediting Barnes because of frankly what's an issue on your end, clearly we can just ignore this "consensus" the same way you do when it's a Cricketer you dislike, and one who you would whine about in the very next sentence.

Regarding you not knowing what Barnes bowled, that's just cause you have dug your head in the sand. We all know what Barnes bowled, and just for reference it doesn't mean we were there but we know by the same means we know the Roman Empire existed, by ****ing reading. Barnes bowled medium pace, relied on late swing both ways and huge cutters, he was exactly the same kind of bowler as Tate and Bedser, we all know that, you're just yet to catch up.

I have also posted images of how far he kept the slips in the past
View attachment 53385
Kindly stop coping about Barnes, it's beyond obvious what he bowled, you're just being willfully obtuse to be contradictory to your own methodology for a complete BS reason.


This is not a flex, you're basically saying you allow cricinfo or Wisden to dictate your opinions even though for your own personal reasons, you disagree with the said assessment. That just means you're suffering from a lack of self, which is pathetic, not great.


lol with both the English players, you've complained in one way or the other. With Barnes, you've used your personal willingness to dig your head in the sand as a reason he shouldn't be in the top ten bowlers or whatever. With Hobbs, it's tamer but you've put an asterisk on his entire peak.

With Bradman, you don't really have a choice but you have also consistently complained about it because of your dumb perception of the Cricket he played and have clearly expressed an irrational desire to shorten the gap between him and the BAB candidates. You also whine about Warne. The only three you are unequivocally in support of are those three and McGrath, I wonder why.

Anyway, there is no way Hammond matches Imran on secondary. Hammond's bowling, is at best, equivalent to Hadlee's batting while his slip fielding is elite, Imran winning on both primary and secondary means Imran is in general ahead of him. Imran also beats Kallis on both primary and secondary, clearly on primary this time (as clear as Lara vs Kallis) and secondary too. Imran doesn't have a tertiary, but he is a bowler which means automatically greater impact, and he is one of the great captains who handpicked and mentored people like Wasim and Waqar and had a huge positive effect on his country's cricket.


There are two reasons I took over here

The first is simple, I joined a debating tournament on another site, and have to knock off the cogwebs and build some writing time, so a big debate seemed fun to have, call it practise.

The second is this nonsense.

Nobody has ever claimed all ARs are superior to all non-Bradman specialists, it has literally never happened. The ARs thread was made by Subshakerz and not by him or me. The claim is that the great all rounders are greater than the great specialists simply because they are. The fact that you've gotten this mad that people would take someone like Kallis or Hammond over Viv or Sachin says a lot. Someone like Sachin would hypothetically make one or two runs per innings more than someone like Hammond, but would take a hundred or 150 less wickets than Hammond over career (let's say 200 matches for both), And let's not even discuss Kallis who would have like 250 more wickets, and then comes the slip fielding where Sachin is not even in the same rung as other two.

The fact the concept of someone picking 300 wickets over an extra 1000 runs, and consistent bowling spells, annoys you this much is just insane.


I think @subshakerz has done a good job of showing Imran is ahead of Marshall in more lists.

Lists from randos don't dictate greatness, Miller doesn't need to be in some lists to beat down Richards.


That won't make a difference. If anything they will get crushed even harder, McGrath was a respectable but hardly impressive outfielder who was the definition of a nothing burger batsman, Tendulkar was a bowler with potential but one who eventually averaged 55 with the ball, was a non-remarkable slip and a nothing captain. It's pointless to compare them to Imran or Miller.


Yeah, No.

You picked a specific example of a team with passable bowling and unacceptable batting. I can do the same too, the Indian team of the 2000s would take Miller comfortably and Miller would be regarded as the god of Cricket because they need stronger bowling, same in the 1980s. Miller is a better Cricketer because over a similar career course, Viv would get 50 runs per dismissal and Miller about 38 runs per dismissal, over the course of 300 dismissals Viv would have around 4k more runs, but Miller in 300 innings would have over 530 wickets, 78% of that top order wickets which is way more valuable than a few thousand extra runs. A world class opening seamer + a 38 averaging batsman > a 50 averaging batsman. what are we doing here? there is no reason to overcomplicate it, Miller as a Cricketer is extremely high value.

As Kimber explained, Miller allows you to pick an extra Cricketer by doing the job of both the #5/#6 batsman, a frontline slip and an opening bowler.

Imran is destructive accross conditions, with winning spells bowled everywhere, an ability to tackle an immense amount of workload as well. He quite literally invented the school of bowling often used by the great flat or dead track bowlers that came after him, Steyn in particular. As arguably a top three user of reverse swing and his willingness to tackle a high workload, literally all of this is applicable for him, he just averages one point higher than
McGrath and that's it.


Even in his bowling all rounder phase, Imran had 28 RPI.

Saying a strong number 8 or 9 don't have influence is cope and denial, it's literally just that. It's denial of the obvious reality. For example, Imran is a much better batsman than Shaun Pollock and even Pollock regularly influenced games, You've been presented with many examples where even Hadlee effected the game with the bat, and many examples of both the mighty West Indies and the Golden Australian team being aided or bailed out by lower order. A strong tail has always been and will always be a factor, teams with weak tails struggle with tight chases, close draws and so forth.

Also, it's just a broad strengthening of the batting lineup. Unlike bowling, where the seventh best bowler of the team might never get the ball, atleast on sporting pitches, all eleven players always bat and try to contribute with the bat, it's just better to have a stronger batting lineup, I can't believe I have to say this.


The batting today is just the same thing as five decades ago was compared to seven decades ago. The introduction of Limited-overs Cricket means that fundamentally players are going to score faster, a similar thing happened in the 70s and 80s after the introduction of One Day Cricket in comparison to 50s and 60s, and players from the past thought this players to be technically bunk. Hutton thought a similar thing for Viv and Gower types as we do for Brook and Jaiswal types. Hutton had bar for bar the same reservations we do about Brook or Jaiswal today, like missing a straight one and not looking as reliable and correct to him.

View attachment 53386
View attachment 53387
Literally word for word what people say about modern batsmen, "might miss a straight one", "reliant on eyes, footwork and power rather than straight correct technique", "would like to him play a quality <insert random bowler type>" and so forth. It's a very common concept and is present in all eras of Cricket. Today is the same to the 00s/90s what the 70s/80s were to the 50s. ODI Cricket made batsmen more aggressive, they still scored the same amount of runs and were better strokemakers than their predecessors on average but worse technicans, not T20 is another evolution to the concept where the current batsmen are probably the most advanced they have ever been in strokeplay with a decline in technique and grafting.

You're also misrepresenting the view point of many when you say we like slower scoring more, we don't. The point is both lower and higher scorings have value, and therefore I don't believe we should think about strike rates when rating cricketers. Your side on this matter is uncompromising, and frankly seems arrogant about their belief of strike rate relevance. I respect someone from the pro-SR side a lot, but rest be assured if users like Subs or PC had the same unearned and unnecessarily arrogant attitude as some of you on this matter, it won't go down well. Also I'm not the progenitor of being anti-SR relevance, Coronis and PEWS were doing that years before me.

I even conceded already that a Cricketer, who has higher range, and can play both like Boycott or Brook, deserves credit for their versatility. I give credit to people like Root and Sangakkara to have so much range to their scoring rate, it is you who wants us to condemn one type of one dimensionality (Bruce Mitchell) while simultaneously another kind of one dimensionality (Sehwag), your view isn't some irrefutable truth.

Why is an unwillingness to do something a negative? like seriously? Shiv played slow but we knew he could accelerate, in certain conditions the lack of the ability to slow things down is a negative, like it was for the West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final. One dimensionality is a negative, but when a player like Chanderpaul or Dravid can accelerate from their tempo, it ceases to be an issue, the same way when a player like Viv or Weekes show they can slow down, their tempos are not an issue anymore either.

The only way a consenting adult batsman playing slowly can be a negative is when it's to the detriment of the team and they don't have the match awareness to realise when to accelerate, which OBVIOUSLY isn't the case with most of the low SR players.

About it being harder, it's not universally true, sure for the average batsman it's hard but there are plenty of players who would find blocking 90 overs tougher than making the same amount of runs within 30 overs, especially today.


Slip catching is obviously an important skill, it's just frustrating the amount of value you put on it.

You once said Mark Taylor's slip fielding is more valuable than Kapil Dev, what a stance that was! For example, Kapil Dev makes 30 runs a dig batting 7 or 8, that's a good 10 or so runs extra from the normal number 7 and number 8 since the second war, would Taylor be a better player if he made those extra runs and multiple more centuries, or with his slip catching? the answer is obvious.

Slips are a tertiary position, they are important but not that important, if Slip fielding was truly as important as lower order batting or fifth bowler bowling, someone like Junior would be seen as on par with Senior, or someone like Ponting would be seen as better than Tendulkar at the very least.

The Cordon is a three man job, fifth bowler is a one man job generally, obviously the value of an entire cordon of three or four players would exceed the singular secondary discipline value of players, but you make the mistake of conflating the value of the entire cordon with singular players. Saying all great teams had great cordons is obviously true, it's also true that all great teams had great batting and bowling too, great opening duos of bowlers or great opening duos of batsmen. A great team is a great team because it excells in all three dimensions of the games, cordon is just one of them, nobody ever said a bad fielding side can be ATG.


I mean ofcourse, you should always pick the best bowling lineup, but for an average side, someone like Miller isn't a number 8 batsman, he is 5 or 6, he is also the best bowler or second best bowler in a team on average and thus you barely sacrifice anything by picking someone like him.

Anyway, obviously you want to pick your best bowling lineup, but you also don't want to sacrifice the batting, obviously a number 9 or 10 bowler should be picked for bowling, you pick a Jasprit Bumrah over a Vernon Philander everytime even though the latter bats way better but it's also simultaneously true that the gap between the great bowlers, especially the top ten, is negligible.

Picking Imran for bowling doesn't mean much, nobody is a much better bowler than Imran, the gap between them is negligible and an extra 10-20 runs a dig is certainly more valuable than miniscule bowling gaps. Especially someone like Hadlee, frankly there is no bowling gap between Hadlee/McGrath/Marshall, it's just a matter of finding one's arguments more viable, at that point there's no reason to leave the extra 20 runs a dig that Hadlee offers for a frankly non-existent gap.

PEWS said that yes, but Considering the standard for keeper bats and averages was 25 and lower generally for majority of Cricket history the value of bowling AR is high. Especially with someone like you, who fully advocates for Knott or Healy or even Evans sometimes, in that case the value gap between Imran and Marshall historically would increase. Even today, teams regularly field Buttler (31), Veryenne (30), Dickwella (31), Haddin (29) etc types, you still need bowling ARs.


1. Indeed, exactly why Kallis is a better player than Sachin. Sachin would give an extra 1000 run over the course of a long career, the extra 200-300 wickets Kallis would take, often times valuable partnerships, some four or wicket hauls in helpful conditions, bowl dry overs to buy time for the main pacers and so forth, are far more valuable than an extra two runs per innings. The same with Hammond.

2. Largely due to workload where it's Sobers >>> Kallis >> Hammond.


One Great slip fielding is not surpassing the value of a good lower order batsman or a good fifth bowler, an entire Cordon? for sure.

You made Assuming all things equal, a 8-11 of Miller, Imran, Botham and Jadeja (bowling ARs with strong secondary disciplimes) is winning you way more matches with an average slip cordon, than a slip cordon of Viv/Hammond/Soners are winning you with an average 8-11 tail. It's not that close. Their contributions are very comsistent and valuable.

Also, Root is a solid slip fielder, even they do drops sometimes.

View attachment 53380
Basically, batting is more important than fielding, complex I know.


The list being garbage is not relevant, your entire position is based upon "well they don't make all time XIS!!!", well, most of the all time XIs are also regarded as garbage on this forum, yet that doesn't mean you don't cite them. How can you dismiss lists while simultaneously citing XIs that are similarly silly.

Until the 80s, Larwood would make every single England XI and Trueman would make about none, who would you and collectively the entire forum vote as frankly the greater bowler? the answer is very obvious.


It's not.

An all time XI is overflowing with resources in all three dimensions of the game.

For example, Miller would open the bowling in 99% of the teams historically, might be every team ever minus the 80s West Indies. He won't get in a million mile radius of the new ball in an all time XI that has McGrath, Barnes and Marshall. In a conventional team, he would be allowed to show his full impact by taking the new ball and batting 5 or 6, therefore the latter is a better measure of his abilities as a cricketer.

As Imran said in his book, he believes these comparisons are weird because every team has their own requirements, if Botham played for West Indies in the 90s, there's no way he gets the new ball, or even the semi new ball if Bishop is around. That West Indies team, or the South African team pre Bavuma, would benefit more from having a Boycott than a Botham, is Boycott a better player? No. It's just team composition, the value of a Cricketer shows best when they are in an ordinary team and their own impact is higher.


1. Can you show me anyone claiming you should overlook vast batting differences in favour of minute bowling differences? Kimber in particular has an interesting view of all rounders

In a good Test team, Botham was at best a fringe pick as a batter or bowler. Most strong batting sides wouldn’t need him, and as a bowler, he’d only fit in specific attacks.

Yet I say this about one of the greatest all-rounders ever. Botham was less a specialist than a transformer - bending to what England needed, whether as a hard-hitting batter or a bowler leading the attack. England could change their lineups because Botham existed. He added more runs and wickets just by playing.

See how he explains how an all rounder who doesn't particularly excell in certain disciplines brings value to the team?

2. Fitting the team better is a basic concept. Hint Hint, it's similar to why Gilchrist crushes Knott, the secondary discipline is diminishing returns at one point. You don't exactly need a Hadlee or whatever at number 10 when you have Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Viv, Sobers and Gilchrist as your top seven, the batting resources are ridiculous and allow you to focus on solely bowling. This doesn't exist in the real world, mostly batting lineups that are average are aided by extra boosts down the order, South Africa throughout the 90s commonly fielded lineups that weren't so good but stll succeeded regardless because they had a strong tail that often waggled.

It's a simple concept, for example, in a slip cordon when you have Hammond/Kallis/Sobers, you don't need to put in Viv anymore, doesn't mean Viv's not a great slip and that doesn't add to his legacy, but simply you don't need another ATG slip fielder. That's how all time XIs work, they are ludicrously loaded with resources so at a point the secondary disciplines simply don't matter anymore, that's not the case in the real world.

On the matter of if they make the team better, they do make teams better, they make real teams better because their secondary discipline is extremely valuable to real teams.


It isn't, Gavaskar is picked over Kallis in any XI post WWII, Gavaskar and Hutton would open. Doesn't mean Gavaskar was a better Cricketer than Kallis, not very close at all. Sachin is picked over Hammond generally, Hammond obviously the better Cricketer.

They fit better because the secondary of Hadlee or Imran are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic presence of resources in all three facets of the sport, in an average team, where the tail runs would mean more, especially in close games, the all rounders have higher value.

Basically, the all rounders add more value in real teams and the specialists can be picked in fictional teams.


Lower order batting is highly valued outside here, there is a reason Jadeja is such a highly regarded player, Stokes too though he isn't lower order. It's only you who on the basis of some subjective lists have started a failing crusade against all rounders.


Ofcourse not, you're not aiming for anything. You don't have Toki Toki no mi, you can't manipulate time to bring all the Cricketers here to make all time XIs, you have to go by what happened in real world, and in real world most ATGs are judged on what they can do for real teams, which are normally average. I already gave you an example, Botham won't do much in an ATG XI clash, certainly won't be picked ahead of any great specialist, yet he is an elite Cricketer who often beats dozens of specialists and is often only beaten by the top ten of specialists.


They are not.

Wicket keeping comes under fielding, by this logic Ricky Ponting was an all rounder in comparison to most outfielders, he fielded in the slips which is a prominent fielding positions, just like keeping. I've never seen a wicket keeper be regarded as an all rounder, by that logic every slip fielder is an all rounder. look at ICC rankings, they don't count keepers as all rounders either. Keeping is fielding + extra steps.



History gave us a template indeed, and so does the present. Face it, in normal teams, the strength of tails is obvious and undeniable, as long as you don't have 5-6 ATG batsmen, the tails have value, as shown by how Australia with the strongest batting lineup in history were consistently being bailed out by the tail.

This is literally so simple, better batting = good, you're being silly if you sacrifice huge batting gains for negligible bowling gains.


No normal team in the history of this great sport is picking Sachin over Hammond unless they are led by ORS or AA, literally it's just a silly take.

Top 5 batsman + nothing bowler + average fielder + nothing captain vs Top 10 batsman + good seamer + reliable spinner both ways + the greatest slip fielder in history of the game + reliable captain. It can't be more obvious.


Lillee makes more XIs than Marshall too, by almost twice as many, but alas you don't actually believe in these methods when they stop aiding your favourites


Nobody is an idiot for having a preference of Cricketers, it's just not that serious a matter eh? but they are gullible and easily impressed. Akram averages 24-25 without a New Zealand so awful I'd argue they were worse than the West Indies batting line-up of the 30s and he bowled to them in very helpful conditions, great bowler and all but he was less effective than McGrath, Ambrose and Donald from his own generation.


Not really, Imran got more votes than Hadlee in the ATXI book that Peterhrt posted, and matched Hadlee in the Wsiden 100 too. Imran is rated on his numbers and that's an issue as it's pretty obvious he was a better bowler than his numbers indicate. They are hampered by the years he played as a batting all rounder (1989-1991) and the years he spent as a student who could only play a few games for Pakistan as he was studying in England.

Between 1976 and mid 1989, Imran averaged 21.44 with the ball, with New Zealand, India and England making flat pitches desperately to stop him (it didn't work mostly) while also making 28 runs a dig with the bat.


More skilled just means more tricks, these pretentious ****s would write poems about Harry Brook if they saw his 186, it doesn't mean much. Imran didn't have elite fielding either, it's just more apparent and discussed with Wasim because footage of a lot of Imran's career isn't there.

Wasim is as far from Imran as a bowler, as Donald is from Steyn. Then you add Imran's far better batting and captaincy, not even in the same universe as cricketers.


Once again, you can win the test without taking twenty wickets, you can never win a Test without outscoring the opposition, you should know well, the match that haunts Sobers is one he lost despite England not taking twenty wickets, infact England won that match and the series without even taking ten wickets.

Nowhere does it say that you can ignore an opportunity to have a substantially stronger and more reliable batting line-up chasing a bowler who takes the same wickets with a single run average difference. Imran Khan isn't Maurice Tate, you aren't sacrificing much of bowling with him, the template talk is all cool and edgy until you realise it's a multi-faceted sport and you need batting to fire just as much as you need bowling to fire.


The point is to score more runs while also bowling them out, an equilibrium is needed. no point bowling them out for 300 twice if your team gets bowled out for 250 because nobody 7 down can score more than 5 runs. Therefore an Imran provided a lot more value than a McGrath.


Your entire belief bowling all rounders aren't given points for their batting goes against reality of basically every match that is played, please start following Cricket over reading what random writers and Kimber have to say, perhaps then you'll say why players like Jadeja are regarded as so good despite being a good bowler at best.

And Yes, Bowling all rounders have real value and it's shown in every match they play, no matter how much you may dislike it.

Re Barnes, when I say I don't know how he bowled, I'm not referring to how back the keeper stood. We're talking abut how did he bowl, how did he set up batsmen, his length, did he bowl short a lot or primarily putch it up, good were the batsmen he faced. We don't know.

And the fact that all we have to go by even regarding to spin or pace speaks volumes. You can include him, I cut off at the point where I can't see for myself how they played.

Everyone has their individual cut off period, that's mine. Yours is before, that's cool as well. Not trying to get you to change yours.

 

[Johan]

Your no. 2.

That's Sobers.

Richard Hadlee, I have done lots of reading, looked at lots of all time XIs, even looked at lots of lists (your preferred metric for obvious reasons.

You think I'm trying to pull him down for some reason, but there's no evidence that was rated either by peers, historians or pundits as highly that you obviously do.

And why do you think I care?

People outside of here care for a lot of things that I don't, that nobody here does, and they are obligated to their opinion. I'm calling you out to debate me on what on substances makes Hadlee worse than Marshall or McGrath, you're using random historians to dodge the debate based on reality and you're basically telling me what X and Y think, well I know people who think Kohli is better than Root, that's not evidence though.

Here he's rated a pretty consistent 3rd or 4th (if Barnes is included), there's literally no evidence that he's rated that highly by those in the know.

"those in the know"? what do you mean that those in the know, do you have an inferiority complex? why would I take the words of those in the know over what my analysis came to when *those in the know" contradict each other all the time? it's just silly. It's not like Hadlee isn't rated, crushed Marshall in the Wisden list you've cited before but who even cares? it's the opinion of strangers.

Hadlee is there, frankly, on his record. Nothing else is needed when you take 5 wickets a game at 22 with a fantastic away record and are a proper #8 batsman.

There was an entire video i shared yesterday where he wasn't even in the consideration besides being arguably better than Lillee.

Kimber straight up said he rates Hadlee higher, but let's ignore that.

When batsmen speak of bowlers from the era he's 3rd or 4th, from his era. You will say it's because he wasn't express, neither is McGrath and his peer rating was considerably higher. Tou will say it's because he was from NZ, Martin Crowe wrote that Lillee, Marshall and were undoubtedly the best 3 bowlers of the era. He named his all time XI, Hadlee, even with the "batting advantage", made the 2nd team.

He's third, behind the greatest bowler of all time, and DK Lillee, DK Lillee being awkwardly highly rated and being objectively higher rated than Marshall and Ambrose but you don't acknowledge that. It's awkward where Hadlee, who is rated higher than Ambrose here and outside here, is to be put down for his peer rating while Ambrose is certainly better than Lillee, despite being rated much lower in the game's literature. It's very interesting for what Cricketers you care so much for peer rating about, and for who you don't.

For why Hadlee is underrated, I don't know why? some players are hyped, some are not, some are box office, some are not, it doesn't have to be something deeply technical. Hadlee was a corridor seam and swing specialist whose entire greatness came from bowling the classical fourth stump line with impeccable control of both seam and swing. Ofcourse, he was not as box office as Lillee or Marshall with whom he directly played with, he never had years of being the best bowler in the world by a country mile like McGrath did, he wasn't the spearhead of an all-conquering almighty team like McGrath, there are so many microfactors that can effect reputation.

At the end of the day, if you want to make an argument against Hadlee, do it fair and square, with achievements and negatives about his quality as a bowler and the negatives about his records.

You belive he was the Hobbs of bowlers, show me the multiple articles, interviews and books that says this.

I compared him to Hutton as far as primary disciplines go, flawless and underrated for whatever reason.

Show the articles,books, interviews that speaks to him being Sobers.

He is not, He is equal to Sobers in primary, far inferior in secondary and tertiary, very sizable gap there. Now, ofcourse, if you intend to argue Sobers is much better in primary discipline, kindly prove why a batsman averaging 57 while batting 5/6 is far superior to a bowler averaging 22 with 5WPM/2.87WPI.

Please, base the argument on reality instead of "Well John Peacock said..."

Your argument is that everyone at Wisden, everyone who's ever made an All Time XI, every batsman of the era who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't understand the game.

Nope. I'm saying they are obligated to having their opinions, I'm just saying I don't think it's some authorative statement that we must adhere to, from his era the people rated Lillee and Marshall higher as bowlers, cool. I think he was better than Lillee, and I'm not impressed by Akram's tricks.

They're not dumb, I just disagree with them on Lillee being better than Hadlee, same way you disagree with them on Lillee being better than Marshall

You've discovered the 3rd and 4th best cricketers of all time and somehow the rest of the cricketing community is just clueless.

Imran is a super popular pick for the third greatest cricketer outside here among the general public, I already made my points on why they are the 3rd and 4th Greatest Cricketers, counter it.

You call Imran a top 7 fast bowler, that's basically where he's rated here, not including Barnes. Add the spinners and that's around 10th. Kimber said top 15, I'm somewhere in the middle of that. That's quite a bit to overtake 1st on primary IMO.

Let's think... let's put the spinners and Hobbs/Bradman outside, let's take Marshall = Sachin, Imran I would say is about Lara level, if Lara could bowl like Stokes, Yeah I'm comfortably taking him over Sachin.

I do find the premise of the gap bwtwen Hobbs and Sobers being significantly large a bit interstsing considering most consider Sobers at worst to be a top 5 bat, and I rate him at worst to be toed with Viv and Sachin.

Yeah it's decently big. About as big as the bowling gap between Marshall and Imran. It's a pretty big gap, I don't see how that is an insane stance to have.

 

[kyear2]

It's just the hilarity of this position that irks most users honestly.

Sobers, who averages 57 and 34 with the ball, is now somehow close to Bradman enough for an argument to be made on who is better, it's just the sheer brainrot of it. While Botham, a much better bowler than Sobers, averaged 35 with the bat, is no contest to Viv at all. Let me rephrase, Botham is much closer as a batsman to Viv than Sobers is to Bradman, and he's a far better bowler than Sobers, yet Botham is nowhere near Viv. Same with Marshall, botham the bowler is much closer to Marshall the bowler than Sobers the batsman is to Bradman the batsman, would you entertain an argument of Botham over Marshall? obviously not.

It's pretty obvious what this Sobers and Bradman stance of yours actually is.


1. Wisden is filled with fanatics and those who evaluate greatness through esoteric measures rather than just with reality and their actual impact in the games they played. Also, that doesn't mean they rate Sobers on par with Bradman just because they agree he is second to Bradman, everyone here does that too.

2. This doesn't separate him at all. Richard Hadlee exists, who is better than any batsman except Bradman and maybe Hobbs when It comes to primary discipline as one of the most impactful cricketers in history who regularly won matches for New Zealand, and was actively the difference between New Zealand being a top three side in the world and oblivion. Imran too, he is a top 7 fast bowler, I would say Imran is about as far away from Marshall as Sobers is from Hobbs among batsmen, neither are truly at the top and are behind by a clear but discernible distance.

3. Nah, it's still, at the end of the day, 34 averaging bowling. There are peaks there, match winning spells, and variety but it always rounds up to a pretty decent bowler and nothing more. Give me Miller's batting

Your position still makes absolutely zero sense, you're willing to overcome 43 point of average gap, and a ratio of 1.73 which is the same as the ratio between Tendulkar and Crawley, because of some good bowling and some great slip catching. Yet Hammond and Kallis are below Sachin despite averaging more than him, being 35 and 37 averaging bowlers respectively (though less workload) and being just as good in the slips as Sobers. Frankly, it's nonsense, if Sobers is a challenger to Bradman, then someone like Stokes is straight up clearly better than Sachin.


Healy keeping Gilly out was a mistake.

Frankly speaking, you're just in denial here. Any and all modern teams would pick the wicket keeper who bats better, now if the batting line-up has the place for both then ofcourse, both will be picked. But given the option between Ben Foakes and Risabh Pant? basically no lineup is picking Foakes, same with Healy who won't be picked ahead of Pant. The reality is most keeper average under 35, so Healy who was averaging 29 or so in a hard era would get picked in most teams but South Africa in 2016-2021 weren't trading De Kock for Healy, and Pakistan aren't trading Rizwan for Healy. It should be obvious, these guys are excelling in facets of the sport that matter a lot more, a QDK hundred from a clutch position is worth more than Healy taking 95% of chances rather than QDK taking 85% of chances.

At one point, after a keeper becomes great, the margin of help you get from a truly elite keeper is small, at that point you'd just take the much better batsman because frankly Cricket games are won through batting and bowling while keeping's value is solely to help the bowlers out somewhat.


Sobers being a rival to Bradman is not an accepted stance, it's Ian Chappell (who never saw Bradman) saying something that Keith Miller also apparently said.

Now, it has to be noted

1. Keith Miller and Don Bradman had multiple, relatively high profile feuds with each other. Bradman hated Miller and vice versa, so we can't take his word on this matter objectively.
2. Chappell too, had a beef with Bradman due to big disagreements about pay and Bradman's adminstrative qualities, once again, meaning he can't be taken all that seriously.

You cited biased testimony on this matter to make your opinion seem less of an unicorn, and honestly, I won't even care if you weren't so hilariously inconsistent with it. Sobers is a challenger to Bradman but Hammond is below Tendulkar? lol.

Regarding primary disciplines, there's some revisionism about Sobers the batsman, not that I personally disagree as I see Sobers as the fifth or sixth greatest batsman in history, but I have to say that you guys rate him higher than he actually was in the time as a bat alone. As a batsman alone, The excellent Rohan Kanhai was seen as an equal or rival to Sobers for much of their careers, atleast until the 1966 England tour, many believed Hammond and Weekes to be better batsmen including Cardus, Hutton and Bradman. Graeme Pollock was also seen as an equal for much of their career overlap.

All in all, obviously Sobers is elite, but him being the best ever candidate with the bat alone is similar to Hadlee, it's obvious but it's weird how you're one of the main propagators of one and a hater for the other.


Crazy how Hutton is better than both Sobers and Richards

maybe if he had the same playing style as Compton, and god horbid, the same playing style as one of the bazballers, he would be rated that way.

Anyway, there wasn't and most probably isn't a definitive consensus that Sobers was a better batsman than Hammond, even here where multiple users think Hammond was a better batsman but here it's mostly commonly accepted that Sobers is a better batsman, it would soon be the same with Smith as well, there is no divinally ordained top 4 after Bradman.


Lol, lmao even.

As someone who swears to adhere to the traditional views and what was considered objective, you're willing to go against them the moment it's a player you subjectively disagree with. Completely hilarious. Anyway, considering you on your own individuality are attempting to eliminate one of these four players, and have spent over a decade on this forum discrediting Barnes because of frankly what's an issue on your end, clearly we can just ignore this "consensus" the same way you do when it's a Cricketer you dislike, and one who you would whine about in the very next sentence.

Regarding you not knowing what Barnes bowled, that's just cause you have dug your head in the sand. We all know what Barnes bowled, and just for reference it doesn't mean we were there but we know by the same means we know the Roman Empire existed, by ****ing reading. Barnes bowled medium pace, relied on late swing both ways and huge cutters, he was exactly the same kind of bowler as Tate and Bedser, we all know that, you're just yet to catch up.

I have also posted images of how far he kept the slips in the past
View attachment 53385
Kindly stop coping about Barnes, it's beyond obvious what he bowled, you're just being willfully obtuse to be contradictory to your own methodology for a complete BS reason.


This is not a flex, you're basically saying you allow cricinfo or Wisden to dictate your opinions even though for your own personal reasons, you disagree with the said assessment. That just means you're suffering from a lack of self, which is pathetic, not great.


lol with both the English players, you've complained in one way or the other. With Barnes, you've used your personal willingness to dig your head in the sand as a reason he shouldn't be in the top ten bowlers or whatever. With Hobbs, it's tamer but you've put an asterisk on his entire peak.

With Bradman, you don't really have a choice but you have also consistently complained about it because of your dumb perception of the Cricket he played and have clearly expressed an irrational desire to shorten the gap between him and the BAB candidates. You also whine about Warne. The only three you are unequivocally in support of are those three and McGrath, I wonder why.

Anyway, there is no way Hammond matches Imran on secondary. Hammond's bowling, is at best, equivalent to Hadlee's batting while his slip fielding is elite, Imran winning on both primary and secondary means Imran is in general ahead of him. Imran also beats Kallis on both primary and secondary, clearly on primary this time (as clear as Lara vs Kallis) and secondary too. Imran doesn't have a tertiary, but he is a bowler which means automatically greater impact, and he is one of the great captains who handpicked and mentored people like Wasim and Waqar and had a huge positive effect on his country's cricket.


There are two reasons I took over here

The first is simple, I joined a debating tournament on another site, and have to knock off the cogwebs and build some writing time, so a big debate seemed fun to have, call it practise.

The second is this nonsense.

Nobody has ever claimed all ARs are superior to all non-Bradman specialists, it has literally never happened. The ARs thread was made by Subshakerz and not by him or me. The claim is that the great all rounders are greater than the great specialists simply because they are. The fact that you've gotten this mad that people would take someone like Kallis or Hammond over Viv or Sachin says a lot. Someone like Sachin would hypothetically make one or two runs per innings more than someone like Hammond, but would take a hundred or 150 less wickets than Hammond over career (let's say 200 matches for both), And let's not even discuss Kallis who would have like 250 more wickets, and then comes the slip fielding where Sachin is not even in the same rung as other two.

The fact the concept of someone picking 300 wickets over an extra 1000 runs, and consistent bowling spells, annoys you this much is just insane.


I think @subshakerz has done a good job of showing Imran is ahead of Marshall in more lists.

Lists from randos don't dictate greatness, Miller doesn't need to be in some lists to beat down Richards.


That won't make a difference. If anything they will get crushed even harder, McGrath was a respectable but hardly impressive outfielder who was the definition of a nothing burger batsman, Tendulkar was a bowler with potential but one who eventually averaged 55 with the ball, was a non-remarkable slip and a nothing captain. It's pointless to compare them to Imran or Miller.


Yeah, No.

You picked a specific example of a team with passable bowling and unacceptable batting. I can do the same too, the Indian team of the 2000s would take Miller comfortably and Miller would be regarded as the god of Cricket because they need stronger bowling, same in the 1980s. Miller is a better Cricketer because over a similar career course, Viv would get 50 runs per dismissal and Miller about 38 runs per dismissal, over the course of 300 dismissals Viv would have around 4k more runs, but Miller in 300 innings would have over 530 wickets, 78% of that top order wickets which is way more valuable than a few thousand extra runs. A world class opening seamer + a 38 averaging batsman > a 50 averaging batsman. what are we doing here? there is no reason to overcomplicate it, Miller as a Cricketer is extremely high value.

As Kimber explained, Miller allows you to pick an extra Cricketer by doing the job of both the #5/#6 batsman, a frontline slip and an opening bowler.

Imran is destructive accross conditions, with winning spells bowled everywhere, an ability to tackle an immense amount of workload as well. He quite literally invented the school of bowling often used by the great flat or dead track bowlers that came after him, Steyn in particular. As arguably a top three user of reverse swing and his willingness to tackle a high workload, literally all of this is applicable for him, he just averages one point higher than
McGrath and that's it.


Even in his bowling all rounder phase, Imran had 28 RPI.

Saying a strong number 8 or 9 don't have influence is cope and denial, it's literally just that. It's denial of the obvious reality. For example, Imran is a much better batsman than Shaun Pollock and even Pollock regularly influenced games, You've been presented with many examples where even Hadlee effected the game with the bat, and many examples of both the mighty West Indies and the Golden Australian team being aided or bailed out by lower order. A strong tail has always been and will always be a factor, teams with weak tails struggle with tight chases, close draws and so forth.

Also, it's just a broad strengthening of the batting lineup. Unlike bowling, where the seventh best bowler of the team might never get the ball, atleast on sporting pitches, all eleven players always bat and try to contribute with the bat, it's just better to have a stronger batting lineup, I can't believe I have to say this.


The batting today is just the same thing as five decades ago was compared to seven decades ago. The introduction of Limited-overs Cricket means that fundamentally players are going to score faster, a similar thing happened in the 70s and 80s after the introduction of One Day Cricket in comparison to 50s and 60s, and players from the past thought this players to be technically bunk. Hutton thought a similar thing for Viv and Gower types as we do for Brook and Jaiswal types. Hutton had bar for bar the same reservations we do about Brook or Jaiswal today, like missing a straight one and not looking as reliable and correct to him.

View attachment 53386
View attachment 53387
Literally word for word what people say about modern batsmen, "might miss a straight one", "reliant on eyes, footwork and power rather than straight correct technique", "would like to him play a quality <insert random bowler type>" and so forth. It's a very common concept and is present in all eras of Cricket. Today is the same to the 00s/90s what the 70s/80s were to the 50s. ODI Cricket made batsmen more aggressive, they still scored the same amount of runs and were better strokemakers than their predecessors on average but worse technicans, not T20 is another evolution to the concept where the current batsmen are probably the most advanced they have ever been in strokeplay with a decline in technique and grafting.

You're also misrepresenting the view point of many when you say we like slower scoring more, we don't. The point is both lower and higher scorings have value, and therefore I don't believe we should think about strike rates when rating cricketers. Your side on this matter is uncompromising, and frankly seems arrogant about their belief of strike rate relevance. I respect someone from the pro-SR side a lot, but rest be assured if users like Subs or PC had the same unearned and unnecessarily arrogant attitude as some of you on this matter, it won't go down well. Also I'm not the progenitor of being anti-SR relevance, Coronis and PEWS were doing that years before me.

I even conceded already that a Cricketer, who has higher range, and can play both like Boycott or Brook, deserves credit for their versatility. I give credit to people like Root and Sangakkara to have so much range to their scoring rate, it is you who wants us to condemn one type of one dimensionality (Bruce Mitchell) while simultaneously another kind of one dimensionality (Sehwag), your view isn't some irrefutable truth.

Why is an unwillingness to do something a negative? like seriously? Shiv played slow but we knew he could accelerate, in certain conditions the lack of the ability to slow things down is a negative, like it was for the West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final. One dimensionality is a negative, but when a player like Chanderpaul or Dravid can accelerate from their tempo, it ceases to be an issue, the same way when a player like Viv or Weekes show they can slow down, their tempos are not an issue anymore either.

The only way a consenting adult batsman playing slowly can be a negative is when it's to the detriment of the team and they don't have the match awareness to realise when to accelerate, which OBVIOUSLY isn't the case with most of the low SR players.

About it being harder, it's not universally true, sure for the average batsman it's hard but there are plenty of players who would find blocking 90 overs tougher than making the same amount of runs within 30 overs, especially today.


Slip catching is obviously an important skill, it's just frustrating the amount of value you put on it.

You once said Mark Taylor's slip fielding is more valuable than Kapil Dev, what a stance that was! For example, Kapil Dev makes 30 runs a dig batting 7 or 8, that's a good 10 or so runs extra from the normal number 7 and number 8 since the second war, would Taylor be a better player if he made those extra runs and multiple more centuries, or with his slip catching? the answer is obvious.

Slips are a tertiary position, they are important but not that important, if Slip fielding was truly as important as lower order batting or fifth bowler bowling, someone like Junior would be seen as on par with Senior, or someone like Ponting would be seen as better than Tendulkar at the very least.

The Cordon is a three man job, fifth bowler is a one man job generally, obviously the value of an entire cordon of three or four players would exceed the singular secondary discipline value of players, but you make the mistake of conflating the value of the entire cordon with singular players. Saying all great teams had great cordons is obviously true, it's also true that all great teams had great batting and bowling too, great opening duos of bowlers or great opening duos of batsmen. A great team is a great team because it excells in all three dimensions of the games, cordon is just one of them, nobody ever said a bad fielding side can be ATG.


I mean ofcourse, you should always pick the best bowling lineup, but for an average side, someone like Miller isn't a number 8 batsman, he is 5 or 6, he is also the best bowler or second best bowler in a team on average and thus you barely sacrifice anything by picking someone like him.

Anyway, obviously you want to pick your best bowling lineup, but you also don't want to sacrifice the batting, obviously a number 9 or 10 bowler should be picked for bowling, you pick a Jasprit Bumrah over a Vernon Philander everytime even though the latter bats way better but it's also simultaneously true that the gap between the great bowlers, especially the top ten, is negligible.

Picking Imran for bowling doesn't mean much, nobody is a much better bowler than Imran, the gap between them is negligible and an extra 10-20 runs a dig is certainly more valuable than miniscule bowling gaps. Especially someone like Hadlee, frankly there is no bowling gap between Hadlee/McGrath/Marshall, it's just a matter of finding one's arguments more viable, at that point there's no reason to leave the extra 20 runs a dig that Hadlee offers for a frankly non-existent gap.

PEWS said that yes, but Considering the standard for keeper bats and averages was 25 and lower generally for majority of Cricket history the value of bowling AR is high. Especially with someone like you, who fully advocates for Knott or Healy or even Evans sometimes, in that case the value gap between Imran and Marshall historically would increase. Even today, teams regularly field Buttler (31), Veryenne (30), Dickwella (31), Haddin (29) etc types, you still need bowling ARs.


1. Indeed, exactly why Kallis is a better player than Sachin. Sachin would give an extra 1000 run over the course of a long career, the extra 200-300 wickets Kallis would take, often times valuable partnerships, some four or wicket hauls in helpful conditions, bowl dry overs to buy time for the main pacers and so forth, are far more valuable than an extra two runs per innings. The same with Hammond.

2. Largely due to workload where it's Sobers >>> Kallis >> Hammond.


One Great slip fielding is not surpassing the value of a good lower order batsman or a good fifth bowler, an entire Cordon? for sure.

You made Assuming all things equal, a 8-11 of Miller, Imran, Botham and Jadeja (bowling ARs with strong secondary disciplimes) is winning you way more matches with an average slip cordon, than a slip cordon of Viv/Hammond/Soners are winning you with an average 8-11 tail. It's not that close. Their contributions are very comsistent and valuable.

Also, Root is a solid slip fielder, even they do drops sometimes.

View attachment 53380
Basically, batting is more important than fielding, complex I know.


The list being garbage is not relevant, your entire position is based upon "well they don't make all time XIS!!!", well, most of the all time XIs are also regarded as garbage on this forum, yet that doesn't mean you don't cite them. How can you dismiss lists while simultaneously citing XIs that are similarly silly.

Until the 80s, Larwood would make every single England XI and Trueman would make about none, who would you and collectively the entire forum vote as frankly the greater bowler? the answer is very obvious.


It's not.

An all time XI is overflowing with resources in all three dimensions of the game.

For example, Miller would open the bowling in 99% of the teams historically, might be every team ever minus the 80s West Indies. He won't get in a million mile radius of the new ball in an all time XI that has McGrath, Barnes and Marshall. In a conventional team, he would be allowed to show his full impact by taking the new ball and batting 5 or 6, therefore the latter is a better measure of his abilities as a cricketer.

As Imran said in his book, he believes these comparisons are weird because every team has their own requirements, if Botham played for West Indies in the 90s, there's no way he gets the new ball, or even the semi new ball if Bishop is around. That West Indies team, or the South African team pre Bavuma, would benefit more from having a Boycott than a Botham, is Boycott a better player? No. It's just team composition, the value of a Cricketer shows best when they are in an ordinary team and their own impact is higher.


1. Can you show me anyone claiming you should overlook vast batting differences in favour of minute bowling differences? Kimber in particular has an interesting view of all rounders

In a good Test team, Botham was at best a fringe pick as a batter or bowler. Most strong batting sides wouldn’t need him, and as a bowler, he’d only fit in specific attacks.

Yet I say this about one of the greatest all-rounders ever. Botham was less a specialist than a transformer - bending to what England needed, whether as a hard-hitting batter or a bowler leading the attack. England could change their lineups because Botham existed. He added more runs and wickets just by playing.

See how he explains how an all rounder who doesn't particularly excell in certain disciplines brings value to the team?

2. Fitting the team better is a basic concept. Hint Hint, it's similar to why Gilchrist crushes Knott, the secondary discipline is diminishing returns at one point. You don't exactly need a Hadlee or whatever at number 10 when you have Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Viv, Sobers and Gilchrist as your top seven, the batting resources are ridiculous and allow you to focus on solely bowling. This doesn't exist in the real world, mostly batting lineups that are average are aided by extra boosts down the order, South Africa throughout the 90s commonly fielded lineups that weren't so good but stll succeeded regardless because they had a strong tail that often waggled.

It's a simple concept, for example, in a slip cordon when you have Hammond/Kallis/Sobers, you don't need to put in Viv anymore, doesn't mean Viv's not a great slip and that doesn't add to his legacy, but simply you don't need another ATG slip fielder. That's how all time XIs work, they are ludicrously loaded with resources so at a point the secondary disciplines simply don't matter anymore, that's not the case in the real world.

On the matter of if they make the team better, they do make teams better, they make real teams better because their secondary discipline is extremely valuable to real teams.


It isn't, Gavaskar is picked over Kallis in any XI post WWII, Gavaskar and Hutton would open. Doesn't mean Gavaskar was a better Cricketer than Kallis, not very close at all. Sachin is picked over Hammond generally, Hammond obviously the better Cricketer.

They fit better because the secondary of Hadlee or Imran are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic presence of resources in all three facets of the sport, in an average team, where the tail runs would mean more, especially in close games, the all rounders have higher value.

Basically, the all rounders add more value in real teams and the specialists can be picked in fictional teams.


Lower order batting is highly valued outside here, there is a reason Jadeja is such a highly regarded player, Stokes too though he isn't lower order. It's only you who on the basis of some subjective lists have started a failing crusade against all rounders.


Ofcourse not, you're not aiming for anything. You don't have Toki Toki no mi, you can't manipulate time to bring all the Cricketers here to make all time XIs, you have to go by what happened in real world, and in real world most ATGs are judged on what they can do for real teams, which are normally average. I already gave you an example, Botham won't do much in an ATG XI clash, certainly won't be picked ahead of any great specialist, yet he is an elite Cricketer who often beats dozens of specialists and is often only beaten by the top ten of specialists.


They are not.

Wicket keeping comes under fielding, by this logic Ricky Ponting was an all rounder in comparison to most outfielders, he fielded in the slips which is a prominent fielding positions, just like keeping. I've never seen a wicket keeper be regarded as an all rounder, by that logic every slip fielder is an all rounder. look at ICC rankings, they don't count keepers as all rounders either. Keeping is fielding + extra steps.



History gave us a template indeed, and so does the present. Face it, in normal teams, the strength of tails is obvious and undeniable, as long as you don't have 5-6 ATG batsmen, the tails have value, as shown by how Australia with the strongest batting lineup in history were consistently being bailed out by the tail.

This is literally so simple, better batting = good, you're being silly if you sacrifice huge batting gains for negligible bowling gains.


No normal team in the history of this great sport is picking Sachin over Hammond unless they are led by ORS or AA, literally it's just a silly take.

Top 5 batsman + nothing bowler + average fielder + nothing captain vs Top 10 batsman + good seamer + reliable spinner both ways + the greatest slip fielder in history of the game + reliable captain. It can't be more obvious.


Lillee makes more XIs than Marshall too, by almost twice as many, but alas you don't actually believe in these methods when they stop aiding your favourites


Nobody is an idiot for having a preference of Cricketers, it's just not that serious a matter eh? but they are gullible and easily impressed. Akram averages 24-25 without a New Zealand so awful I'd argue they were worse than the West Indies batting line-up of the 30s and he bowled to them in very helpful conditions, great bowler and all but he was less effective than McGrath, Ambrose and Donald from his own generation.


Not really, Imran got more votes than Hadlee in the ATXI book that Peterhrt posted, and matched Hadlee in the Wsiden 100 too. Imran is rated on his numbers and that's an issue as it's pretty obvious he was a better bowler than his numbers indicate. They are hampered by the years he played as a batting all rounder (1989-1991) and the years he spent as a student who could only play a few games for Pakistan as he was studying in England.

Between 1976 and mid 1989, Imran averaged 21.44 with the ball, with New Zealand, India and England making flat pitches desperately to stop him (it didn't work mostly) while also making 28 runs a dig with the bat.


More skilled just means more tricks, these pretentious ****s would write poems about Harry Brook if they saw his 186, it doesn't mean much. Imran didn't have elite fielding either, it's just more apparent and discussed with Wasim because footage of a lot of Imran's career isn't there.

Wasim is as far from Imran as a bowler, as Donald is from Steyn. Then you add Imran's far better batting and captaincy, not even in the same universe as cricketers.


Once again, you can win the test without taking twenty wickets, you can never win a Test without outscoring the opposition, you should know well, the match that haunts Sobers is one he lost despite England not taking twenty wickets, infact England won that match and the series without even taking ten wickets.

Nowhere does it say that you can ignore an opportunity to have a substantially stronger and more reliable batting line-up chasing a bowler who takes the same wickets with a single run average difference. Imran Khan isn't Maurice Tate, you aren't sacrificing much of bowling with him, the template talk is all cool and edgy until you realise it's a multi-faceted sport and you need batting to fire just as much as you need bowling to fire.


The point is to score more runs while also bowling them out, an equilibrium is needed. no point bowling them out for 300 twice if your team gets bowled out for 250 because nobody 7 down can score more than 5 runs. Therefore an Imran provided a lot more value than a McGrath.


Your entire belief bowling all rounders aren't given points for their batting goes against reality of basically every match that is played, please start following Cricket over reading what random writers and Kimber have to say, perhaps then you'll say why players like Jadeja are regarded as so good despite being a good bowler at best.

And Yes, Bowling all rounders have real value and it's shown in every match they play, no matter how much you may dislike it.

The last part of this I'm going to touch on is again the slip issue.

Fist off, Root is indeed solid. He's not great and he's not elite. He can't get to balls that Kallis or Smith could, nor even Brooks who holds down the more important position of 2nd slip over him.

I showed you articles and interviews where Greg Chappell, a former test captain say that slip cordon was more important and that you don't select your bowling attack by who can bat better.

I played a video by Boycott, saying than when building a team you select you best possible attack, but also have to focus on selecting batters who can catch in the cordon because you need them to take 20 wickets.

Kimber, he said you aelct your best bowlers, the no. 1 job is taking 20 wickets, if you can't, having a batter at 8 means **** all.

Swanton and CMJ prioritized only one in their selections. I've posted many more, I've heard Gavaskar ad nauseum during his broadcasts speak of the importance of Hamburg younger batsmen who can catch in the cordon. There's plenty more I can reference.

An AT XI despite your objections is the best template to identify not only greatness, but the template how to build a team.

Despite yours and Subz's assertions that such a team requires a strong no. 8, and the bat deep views of the vocal minority on the site proposing going even deeper, there's not a single team ever, including ours that has both Hadlee and Imran, with Imran making about less than half and Hadlee (the consensus 3rd greatest ever?) making next to none.

As much as you would like to propagate your views as unanimous, it's quite the opposite.

The slip cordon has been a primary focus of team selection over a no. 8 by many for some time now. And while I agree a batting all rounder is a must, I don't think him being a "great" bowler is as much a priority. That doesn't mean that you don't accept the gift of a Hammond, Sobers or Kallis. But after one, there's diminishing returns, while you need at least two great slips.

You calling it tertiary doesn't stop it from garnering more first place votes than lower order batting in the poll in this thread. All three are close as hell. Red, Bambino, Heathdavis Speed and others also explained why they find it to be more valuable, notnto mention the ones who fiund all to be equal. This isn't a me against the world conversation.

I would even argue, as Chappel and other have, that it's more of a specialist position than a fifth bowler not good enough to make it into the main rotation, or a sub test standard bat that occupies the lower order.

Always, moving on to other posts.