Comparison of great specialist cricketers with great all-rounders

[Muloghonto]

An alltime XI for me would be:

 

Gavaskar(lock)

????

Bradman(lock)

Sachin (lock)

Viv or Lara( lock)

Sobers(lock)

?????

Marshall (lock)

Warney/Murali(Lock)

?????

?????

 

[maniac]

Here is my first test X1

Sehwag

Gavaskar

Lara

Sachin

Viv

Sobers

Gilchrist

Wasim

Warne 

Marshall

Mcgrath

 

Here is my 2nd test X1

Hayden

Greenidge

Ponting

Smith

Kallis

Dhoni

Imran

Kumble

Hadlee

Murali

Steyn

 

Here is my 3rd test X1

Cook

Langer

Kohli

Sanga

Steve Waugh/Dravid

Mccullum

Botham

Kapil

Herat/Bedi

Donald/Chandrasekhar

Waqar

 

I see allrounders as utility players and as bonus. I would prefer to go with specialists

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by maniac

[maniac]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

An alltime XI for me would be:

 

Gavaskar(lock)

????

Bradman(lock)

Sachin (lock)

Viv or Lara( lock)

Sobers(lock)

?????

Marshall (lock)

Warney/Murali(Lock)

?????

?????

 

I would say Wasim for variety as the greatest left arm fast bowler by default is a lock too and I rate Mcgrath over Marshall personally because I am biased because  I caught Marshall in 92 when he was way past his prime and was almost a trundler. Maybe I rate Donald very high because for my generation he was the most fearsome tearaway quick. Wasim waqar Courtney or Curtley would knock you over but Donald would hurt you. Same goes for Shoaib And Lee but I see them more as LOI bowlers

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

I would say Wasim for variety as the greatest left arm fast bowler by default is a lock too and I rate Mcgrath over Marshall personally because I am biased because  I caught Marshall in 92 when he was way past his prime and was almost a trundler. Maybe I rate Donald very high because for my generation he was the most fearsome tearaway quick. Wasim waqar Courtney or Curtley would knock you over but Donald would hurt you. Same goes for Shoaib And Lee but I see them more as LOI bowlers

Yeah well seeing Marshall in 92 is the equivalent of only seeing Sachin in 2013. I’ve seen both at their peak and Marshall was way better than McGrath. Especially at figuring out batsmen or the pitch. 

Good case for Akram, personally I think a left arm fast is required but I am not entirely sure he is decisively better than Davidson, so I left it open. I only mentioned the ones who should be a lock, with fair margin for the rest, being a matter of pitches or such. I can for eg definitely see the need for two spinners on a square turner or crumbling pitch. Or if the pitch was wet and clay like sticky, the first name on the bowling list is Derek Underwood.

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Yeah well seeing Marshall in 92 is the equivalent of only seeing Sachin in 2013. I’ve seen both at their peak and Marshall was way better than McGrath. Especially at figuring out batsmen or the pitch. 

Good case for Akram, personally I think a left arm fast is required but I am not entirely sure he is decisively better than Davidson, so I left it open. I only mentioned the ones who should be a lock, with fair margin for the rest, being a matter of pitches or such. I can for eg definitely see the need for two spinners on a square turner or crumbling pitch. Or if the pitch was wet and clay like sticky, the first name on the bowling list is Derek Underwood.

On a crumbling pitch Kumble was as lethal as they come. In fact the only spinner who could actually hurt the batsmen  like a fast bowler on those pitches, don’t know if Underwood was as good as Kumble.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

On a crumbling pitch Kumble was as lethal as they come. In fact the only spinner who could actually hurt the batsmen  like a fast bowler on those pitches, don’t know if Underwood was as good as Kumble.

On crumblers, Kumble is God. Underwood was God on sticky wickets- which is what you get if the pitch has a good amount of clay and gets rained on. When it’s not rained on, the batsmen call it a pitch where the ball isn’t coming on to the bat and is a bit two paced. Put rain on that and it’s sticky. And that’s where Underwood was king.

[maniac]

FTB or not Sehwag has to be in every ATG  test X1. The guys changed test cricket for ever.

 

Sehwag, Warne and credit where due bottle caps or not Akram for reverse swing changed test cricket. Also Chandrasekhar for being the original mystery spinner. Viv is another guy with those high strike rates.

 

Rest all are just upgraded versions of their contemporaries or predecessors. Sachin,Lara in batting and other bowling greats included

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

He didn’t bowl like Zak,

he had a similar stat is what is meant. Zak was frontline quick 130 to 148, swing and york in his career. Kallis was a 130 to 140 , more a worker of the ball, he got heaps of wickets though. He was an absolute beast batsman though. I remember in that series with SA in SA with their great team and Indias fab four bats, they showed this stat wherein Kallis was basically comparable to the  sum of Sachin + Zak in terms of batting and wickets. 

[Vilander]

i miss that time when SA were like a phenomenal team and cant be beat at home - would go to Aus and beat them etc. They are now wtf an other good team but not good enough like NZ. Ony Aus and Eng remain.

[Khota]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There is very little strategy involved in hitting a ball pitched at 90mph in a locus of 4 inches, with a curved surface, than hitting a ball coming between 60-90mph with a flat surface from a locus of 4x4 feet. Basic physics says so. As usual, you are wrong and the physics is provable. This is also seen in the fact that baseball has two essential strokes while cricket has dozen plus. Strategy involves thought. Less reaction time equals less time to think and therefore far less strategic options at play.Stop talking nonsense.

Clueless. The hardest thing in any sport to do is hit a round ball with a right bat. Hitting with a cricket bat is walk in the park compared to baseball.

[maniac]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

Clueless. The hardest thing in any sport to do is hit a round ball with a right bat. Hitting with a cricket bat is walk in the park compared to baseball.

No.  judging a ball  deviating only in the air is a lot more easier to judge than a ball hitting the ground and then deviating. You can measure and judge the moment of the air but not easy to measure of the pitch. 

 

Facing a 90mph pitch is relatively easier than say a 125k trundler on a crumbling minefield

[Vilander]

9 minutes ago, Khota said:

Clueless. The hardest thing in any sport to do is hit a round ball with a right bat. Hitting with a cricket bat is walk in the park compared to baseball.

baseball ball is bigger than cricket ball, cricket bat is wider by bigger magnitude than baseball bat and curve dynamics of baseball is less complex and has lesser variable than cricket ball swing/seam/rough . I call it even, nothing is walk in the park etc. If a baseball team plays t20 against cricket team they will loose badly.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Clueless. The hardest thing in any sport to do is hit a round ball with a right bat. Hitting with a cricket bat is walk in the park compared to baseball.

Yes. Which is why cricketers have more options and more options mean more strategy. The harder a physical task is and less reaction time you have, less strategies are at your disposal. Hence baseball has far less strategy than cricket.Thank you for proving my point. 

[Khota]

2 hours ago, maniac said:

No.  judging a ball  deviating only in the air is a lot more easier to judge than a ball hitting the ground and then deviating. You can measure and judge the moment of the air but not easy to measure of the pitch. 

 

Facing a 90mph pitch is relatively easier than say a 125k trundler on a crumbling minefield

 

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

baseball ball is bigger than cricket ball, cricket bat is wider by bigger magnitude than baseball bat and curve dynamics of baseball is less complex and has lesser variable than cricket ball swing/seam/rough . I call it even, nothing is walk in the park etc. If a baseball team plays t20 against cricket team they will loose badly.

Baseball has two seams and it can change direction twicw in the air like a corkscrew. two seams makes the dynamics very complex.

58 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes. Which is why cricketers have more options and more options mean more strategy. The harder a physical task is and less reaction time you have, less strategies are at your disposal. Hence baseball has far less strategy than cricket.Thank you for proving my point. 

Proven my foot. If you less time your task is harder when you have to hit the ball.

[Muloghonto]

26 minutes ago, Khota said:

 

Baseball has two seams and it can change direction twicw in the air like a corkscrew. two seams makes the dynamics very complex.

It’s called a knuckleball. And after Randy Johnson nobody has bowled it more than once or twice an entire season. 

26 minutes ago, Khota said:

Proven my foot. If you less time your task is harder when you have to hit the ball.

Hence you have less time to think, hence less strategies at play. Hence baseball does not have the variety of strokes cricket does. Again, stop talking nonsense. 

[Khota]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It’s called a knuckleball. And after Randy Johnson nobody has bowled it more than once or twice an entire season. 

Hence you have less time to think, hence less strategies at play. Hence baseball does not have the variety of strokes cricket does. Again, stop talking nonsense. 

I know what it is called and I know why it is rarely used as they are going for speed now. Genius the point I was making is that the aerodynamics of baseball is lot more complex than a single seam cricket ball.

 

Startegy wise baseball is ages ahead. Words from baseball vocabulary are creeping into cricket not the the other way around.

 

No need to hijack this topic. You know so little.

[Sooda]

On 10/17/2019 at 9:36 PM, maniac said:

In a odi game srt the 5th bowler is as good as Kallis the 5th bowler. Also you have guys like Jayasuriya who can make it to a odi all time X1 who can be more effective than Kallis. Kallis wasn’t a great odi bat anyways

 

In tests sure Kallis can make it but if you pick 4 out of 6 ATG bowlers like Marshall,Wasim, Warne,Murali,Steyn and Mcgrath  and most Times you won’t need Kallis specifically because say keeper spot is taken up by Gilchrist that leaves 6 batting options

 

Sachin,Lara,Ponting,Viv  are a lockdown and all 4 are middle order so that leaves opening slots which will go to Sehwag and May be either Hayden, Greenidge, Gavaskar and Cook vying for the other slot. Sachin,Sehwag and Viv all 3 can roll their arm over to give that extra cushion. I mean I wouldn’t drop any of those 4 middle order bats for Kallis just for his bowling. May be Kallis can compete with Ponting.

 

As far as lower order goees Akram, Marshall,Warne can all bat a bit. Only out and out bunnies are Mcgrath and Murali so Kallis won’t make my first X1 anyways.

 

As mulo said maybe Sobers over Ponting so again no need for Kallis when every name I mentioned are out and out match winners

 

 

 

Agree on all counts, thats why I said I think Id only consider Kallis over Sachin if the team had a below par bowling attack, and having him as an option would help

 

In an all time XI it is hard to fit him in, it has to be Sobers

[rtmohanlal]

On 10/18/2019 at 12:57 AM, Sooda said:

I dont think Kapil was good enough a bat to hold a place on his batting alone, could argue that he had the talent for it if he applied himself to that alone... but , extracting the stats, at the half way point of his career in 86 he averaged 30 with 3 centuries ( one against Holding Roberts Marshall and Garner in port of spain)  batting was his much lesser suite but he is still one of the greatest all rounders ever.

 

Some contend that an all rounder has to be good enough to hold a place down on either facet of his game... Sobers - as you points out- may have just about been able to, but he was a freak - Kaillis couldnt , neither could Kapil but dosent mean they arent ATG all rounders

Kapil can't be  evaluated based on his end batting average alone. He played 184 batting  inns   & bowled a whopping 27740 balls in a span of 15 years & 5 months. From basically 7nth batting position he put on all these  runs in the company of tail enders & hence his str: of 81-82.5  too deserves lots of weightage.And he played some sublime   dominating inns against quality bowling attacks when the team needed them the most. Keep in mind that all his batting exploits were achieved amidst such heavy work load as a bowler.

 

When we think of the fact that batsmen like Srikkanth,Yashpal Sharma,Gaekwad,Chetan Chauhan, Sandip Patil etc etc too  played for India do we realize that Kapil could have played in the team as a genuine batsman alone.

[Muloghonto]

11 hours ago, Khota said:

I know what it is called and I know why it is rarely used as they are going for speed now. Genius the point I was making is that the aerodynamics of baseball is lot more complex than a single seam cricket ball.

And that’s why there is less control over it leading to less variety. Number of people who can bowl the slower ball in cricket is orders of magnitude more than the number of people in baseball who can bowl knuckleballs. Thank you for proving my point that baseball is more linear and thus require less strategy  

11 hours ago, Khota said:

Startegy wise baseball is ages ahead. Words from baseball vocabulary are creeping into cricket not the the other way around.

 

No need to hijack this topic. You know so little.

There is far less strategy in baseball which is why there are far less stroke variations or ball variations in baseball. How culture is influenced mean nothing, baseball is more professional than cricket but is strategically far simpler coz both the ball and bat does far less in it than in cricket. 

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

And that’s why there is less control over it leading to less variety. Number of people who can bowl the slower ball in cricket is orders of magnitude more than the number of people in baseball who can bowl knuckleballs. Thank you for proving my point that baseball is more linear and thus require less strategy  

There is far less strategy in baseball which is why there are far less stroke variations or ball variations in baseball. How culture is influenced mean nothing, baseball is more professional than cricket but is strategically far simpler coz both the ball and bat does far less in it than in cricket. 

The only thing we have proven so far is that you are clueless.

 

Talking about startegy have you ever seen  on deck. How he swinging the bat with weights attached to it. Have you ever seen that in cricket. Never. The next guy in cricket is scratching his balls. The on deck is warming up with weights attached to his bat so that in real time he can increase the bat velocity for a hit. You have no idea how detail oriented baseball is. Clueless.