Who was the better bowler - Marshall or Tendulkar?

[zen]

ello der sunshine ....You were the one that were cribbbing about Garry not having the advantage of large no.of matches ... which is why I decided to compare FC with Test stats ... Do you understand Moron ? I guess with your head stuck so far up your backside you will feel that everybody else who doesnt have that condition needs medical help .... :hysterical::hysterical:

Which is exactly waht a moron would do :giggle: the guy who thinks that someone head can be stuck in his backside also thinks I need medicle help .... let's not forget that the same guy compared FC stats with tests :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

err ... I was trying to help you out there you dumbass .... but I forgot your head was stuck someplace where the sun dont shine ... my bad :hysterical:

the moron who thinks head can be stuck in the backside now thinks he is trying to help :giggle: Shrink please! :hysterical:

[zen]

Batting Tendulkar : 9.9 Sobers : 6 Bowling Tendulkar : 4 Sobers : 7

The moron keeps pulling numbers out of nowhere :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

chalo 6.5 each kar do ... kya farak padta hai ? The point is I dont really rate his batting as highly as you do. I have explained the reasons and the primary one being that SRT will nearly match his domestic FC record thru just his Test match numbers. That is some achievement.

Well there has to be consistency, right? After all Sobers batted and bowled in the same era and his batting stats are much better than his bowling stats and achievements. So, how can a bowling average of around 35 be equivalent to a batting average of around 60. In modern analogy it would be like saying Kallis' bowling is better than his batting. If his batting was good only for 6/10, then surely his bowling will have to rank lower, because if that does not happen then Lindwall, Trueman, and Miller, who averaged around 21-22 during his times would have rankings of 10, given an average of 35 is equal to 7/10. But in other posts, you have said Lindwall and Miller were ordinary bowlers.

same place as Sir Hammond was .... :hysterical:

It was a genuine question.

BTW where would Sir Gubby Allen - he of the "ohhh I dont need Bodyline tactics as Iam good enough to get wkts without such dubious tactics" fame - lie on that scale ? :hmmm:

Probably around 6-7 out of 10.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

you are right about that if you purely go by numbers alone. IMO Garrys batting stats are a bit bloated due to the lack of hi quality fast bowlers. My whole point is given what SRT thas achieved in Test Match cricket and the way it stacks up against Garrys FC record you cannot rank his batting to be just 0.5 points below SRT like you did.

Which is fine and you are entitled to disagree with me and have your own opinion. However, your own opinion and ranking should be internally consistent at the very least. Do you agree to that? If Sobers' batting is 6/10, then surely his bowling has to rank significantly lower. For if your argument is that his batting stats are bloated due to the lack of high quality bowlers, then he was actually one of those low quality bowlers and had fairly mediocre numbers compared to someone like Lindwall, Miller, or Trueman from around his times, whom you've said were ordinary themselves in other posts. Now, if you do rank Sobers' bowling to be significantly below his batting like around 3-4 out of 10 to be consistent with his batting/bowling achievements from the same era, it makes him a worse or equal bowler to Tendukar. How will you make your rankings self consistent? EDIT : I gave you a ranking of Gubby Allen. Now, where would you rank Rameez Raja?

[zen]

4SzfWtTZOtA Sir Gary Sobers

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Your ranking is also not consistent in that you consider SRT's mammoth batting achievements to be worth only 0.5 points more than Garry's. Infact if you go by avgs he should be ahead of SRT in Batting as well in your ranking. But we all know that it is not right and this is where subjectivity comes in and all hell breaks loose.

My rankings are internally consistent. You might not agree with my opinion that Sobers was very close to Tendulkar as a batsman, but that has nothing to do with the consistency of my rankings. Your ranking Sobers much below Tendulkar is not the inconsistent bit, even though I disagree with it. Your ranking Sobers' batting inferior or equal to his bowling is the inconsistent part. Moreover, I never said that I am using average as the only criteria to base my rankings on. If that were the case there was no point in having these rankings. The entire point of having a discussion based on them is to take into account the influence of the subjectivities that you are talking about. Regarding Tendulkar/Sobers, I feel they are very close as batsmen and the reason I've ranked Tendulkar slightly above Sobers is partly because of his domination of the game in the 90s, one such subjective criteria which is not covered if we just look at averages.

Well you must realize that the batting points were accorded not based on the 57.78 avg but after accounting for the quality of bowling he faced. Now if you want to contend that he bowled to crap batsmen as well then thats a different story and it becomes a bit of a catch 22 situation.

It's not my contention that the batsmen he bowled to were crap. It is a simple logical deduction given that the best batsman of Sobers' times - Sobers himself - is put at 6/10 by you. From there it quite simply follows that all other batsmen of his days, who were no doubt inferior to Sobers would be crap, if the best himself was barely average/above average.

In reality we will never know and we will never agree on this core issue : i.e the cricket you are seeing today is of faar higher intensity and quality than it used to be. So its a bit futile to be ranking these two guys on the same scale going by the simplistic assumption that a run scored today required the same skills as it did in the 50s and 60s.

For the purpose of this discussion we don't have to agree on the core issue you are talking about. The purpose of drawing up these individual rankings and assessments is that both you and I factor in these differences while ranking the players. We don't have to arrive at a consensual figure, but your as well as mine rankings should have some internal consistencies like given the huge gulf between Sobers' performance as a bowler and batsman, if some rankings are showing him as an equal or better bowler than he was a batsman then something is wrong.

We have done that discussion to death elsewhere and the fundamental reason for the diametrically opposite viewpoints that we have is because I simply dont trust cricket writers and experts whereas you have the utmost faith and trust in their judgement. What is common however is that we both have not seen Sir Garry play but we have witnessed Baasu bat for many many years.

But in the case of Sobers the leap of faith is minimal. There are many, many people still alive who have watched Sobers live or have played against him. My father has seen him play, so have a few other people I personally know. Sobers is not from some 70-80 year old era. Tons and tons of active cricket experts have watched him play. Moreover, the video footage of Sobers are plenty. There are numerous clips on youtube besides hours long DVDs and VHS tapes of the series he featured in all available to purchase. Improved video technology at least during the later years of his career also helps and motions don't appear as jerky and awkward as watching some clip from the 1940s.

[zen]

Appears as if some ppl have no business other than try to demean past greats and sing Tendulkar's praises. What's hilarious is how these morons go about cherry picking whatever suits them whether it's picking list A averages, bringing out 2 mins of video footage from 1930s to pulling out some idiotic ranking number out of thin air :giggle: The modus operandi is pretty simple: cherry pick and argue against any batsman who is better or as good as Tendulkar. When their asses get kicked, they lie low and then the urge to demean others and praise Tendulkar comes back at every milestone Tendulkar reaches so they re-surface only to get their asses kicked one again :hysterical:

[vaibhav_delhi]

^what wrong in digging video footage? Apart for this tht it exposes sheer amateur-ness of the 30s era?

[zen]

^what wrong in digging video footage? Apart for this tht it exposes sheer amateur-ness of the 30s era?

Those^ bolded parts should give you a clue :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

Those^ bolded parts should give you a clue :winky:

well that video footage does show that the bowlers were not exactly express pace.

[zen]

well that 1930s video footage does show that the bowlers were not exactly express pace.

:stupid:

[zen]

0X3j9Sp2keM&feature=related ^ look at this low tech footage and see how crappy Kapil looks :giggle: Let's say if that type of low tech footage was the amongst the only available footage of Kapil and some clown would say how crappy Kapil was based on that .... and then that someone went on further to post the below: zSBOi8RQg4s&feature=related and imply something that I don't even won't to mention :--D

[vaibhav_delhi]

well that video footage does show that the bowlers were not exactly express pace.

Imagine bradman facing akhtar, lee n co bowling at his body without helmet n arm guard, what are the odds that his head wud've been knocked off in a single innings?

[zen]

UUux1p1Vg3A&NR=1 h446pVsEr3M&NR=1

[The Outsider]

That's an excellent video of Kapil, rett. And this is the late 70s. Can anyone with an open mind imagine the quality of video in the 30s and 40s? Kapil is being made to look like a club level bowler or even worse in that footage.