Top Five Cricketers from each country

[Bolo]

Actually, you can do whatever you like. If you've got a top order of all time great batsmen, then the chances of you needing Hadlee (or anyone's) lower order runs is insignificant, if you think there is another bowler who is better than him in that discipline, or because you want to do something different with your line up. And if you wanted to run the lower order runs metric, you have Imran from the same era who had a similar bowling average and a much better batting average again. Personally I'd have McGrath over every other fast bowler ever, even Marshall. My reaosning is he's got a very simialr average and record to all the 80s and 90s greats, but bowled in a much flatter era where batsmen get marked down because decks were so flat. If that's the case, why doesn't he get marked up for having the same average as other fellas in a much tougher bowling era?

But none of these things really matter because it's purely opinion. Lots of blokes on here will pick an ATG side and structure it around playing both Murali and Warne. I wouldn't do that because I think two spinners is rubbish unless you're on the SC, and quite frankly, who would ever actually choose to be there? But there's lots of people who want to base their team structure around that, and if they do, God bless them and all who sail in them. These teams are like all other opinions and like arseholes - everyone has one.

I'm not debating whether hadlee deserves a spot in an atg team, I'm discussing his quality/contributions as a player. These two points don't need to allign. I rate Kallis a much greater test cricketer than Chappell. However, I'm not sticking Kallis in an atg team, but might add Chappell.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You can’t pick XI fast bowlers. The idea that someone is being insulted if they aren’t picked as one of the three best players in their field across 140 odd years of cricket is pretty ludicrous.

Question is , Why always Marshall , McGrath , Akram , Lillee, Steyn..etc despite Hadlee being Greater overall player and on same level in bowling alone ?

 

[Dendarii]

Makes me think Shaun Pollock is the most underrated player then. Only just below the top echelon of pace bowlers but was one of the few who could have permanently sat in the top 7 with the bat.

If you look at the players who have made 1000 runs and taken 100 wickets there aren't too many with a better bowling average than Pollock, and those who have a higher batting average tend to be batting allrounders. Perhaps it's because he didn't have too many big innings (only two centuries and a high score of 111) that his batting sometimes gets forgotten about. That and maybe also having played his entire career alongside someone who was an even better allrounder than him.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Makes one wonder regarding Botham usually being mentioned before Pollock in AR discussions. Batting averages similar (although admittedly vast differences when you take into account not outs/conversion rates). But Pollock destroys Botham with the ball.

Botham Bat AVG and Ball AVG better than Kapil , But who is better between them ? It's debatable.

Chris Cairns better than Kapil in both bat and ball avgs. No one rates him above Kapil in either discipline.

 

[mr_mister]

Better? Or just an inverted version

I'd say Pollock as a bowler is equal to Kallis as a batsman in terms of how they're viewed, not in the top 10 of all time but certainly ATGs for their fields

And likewise Kallis' bowling was about as useful as Pollock's batting to the team. A fifth bowler and a number 7 bat share that usefulness right

 

[Burgey]

Question is , Why always Marshall , McGrath , Akram , Lillee, Steyn..etc despite Hadlee being Greater overall player and on same level in bowling alone ?

You really should never ask someone to speak on behalf of everyone else. Fortunately for you, I am one of the very few who is eminently qualified to do so, and will indulge your question.

There are a few reasons. Firstly he’s a kiwi, and their efforts are sometimes not as well recognised as others.

Secondly, he had the disadvantage of being around in arguably the best era ever for fast bowling, so he didn’t stand out as much as if he’d been the dominant and stand out bowler in another era, like Steyn as an example.

He may also not get the kudos given his home decks were considered NZ green tops. I think that’s unfair but it’s a perception.

There’s an element of him being so far ahead of his team mates that he would naturally take all the wickets. Again, I don’t know that I agree with that, there’s benefits being a clear number one in a side, and there are others being one of four guns like the WI blokes of the same era.

I also think Hadlee’s batting is being massively over rated here. He was no more than a very average number seven or very good eight at test level, and I say that as someone who saw him bat a lot. He had a great eye, but of the four 80s all rounders, he was by far the weakest with the bat. He was sort of slightly worse than Ian Healy level with the cue imo - no mug at all and scored valuable runs, but nowhere near the batsman the likes of Botham, Khan and Dev were.

 

[Dendarii]

Better? Or just an inverted version

I'd say Pollock as a bowler is equal to Kallis as a batsman in terms of how they're viewed, not in the top 10 of all time but certainly ATGs for their fields

And likewise Kallis' bowling was about as useful as Pollock's batting to the team. A fifth bowler and a number 7 bat share that usefulness right

That's true. Maybe I should have said "arguably better", although Kallis does seem to be rated higher as an all-rounder than Pollock, maybe because he stands out more being a batting allrounder as there are far less of them.

 

[MrPrez]

Kallis was definitely a better bowler than Pollock was a batsman.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Actually, you can do whatever you like. If you've got a top order of all time great batsmen, then the chances of you needing Hadlee (or anyone's) lower order runs is insignificant,

Not True. Your ATG batsmen going to face a greater bowling attack than whatever they ever faced.
Every run counts. Also Hadlee is a highest quality bowler , probably the best ever. His batting is a bonus. If you can strengthen your batting without compromising bowling quality, go for it even if it is number 11.

For example

1st 11
Gavaskar
Hutton
Bradman
Sachin
Lara
Sobers
Gilly
Procter
Hadlee
Akram
Murali

Admitted , they are super strong . But look at their opponents.

2nd 11

Hobbs
B.Richards
Viv
Headley
Hammond
Rice
Miller
Knott
Imran
Marshall
Warne

Facing an attack consisting Akram , Hadlee , Procter, Murali and Sobers or Marshall, Imran , Miller , Rice and Warne will not be easy for any ATG batting line up. Most probably their avgs will drop in to low 40s or high 30s. ( Except Bradman)

 

[mr_mister]

Kallis was definitely a better bowler than Pollock was a batsman.

Is that for certain? Averaged less than 2 wickets per test and his average of 32 is the same as Pollock's batting average of 32, which sit at about the same tier for each field

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Is that for certain? Averaged less than 2 wickets per test and his average of 32 is the same as Pollock's batting average of 32, which sit at about the same tier for each field

Yes
In tests they are almost equal.
ODis Pollock easily.

 

[Burgey]

Papa,

Hadlee’s batting wasn’t that good. Seriously.

 

[Burgey]

Is that for certain? Averaged less than 2 wickets per test and his average of 32 is the same as Pollock's batting average of 32, which sit at about the same tier for each field

Pollock over rated as a batsman and bowler imho. Batting average inflated by not outs etc batting low down the order

 

[MrPrez]

Is that for certain? Averaged less than 2 wickets per test and his average of 32 is the same as Pollock's batting average of 32, which sit at about the same tier for each field

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that a 32 bowling average is better than a 32 batting average in Tests.

Kallis could easily justify Test selection as a genuine frontline pacer. Pollock could not do justify selection as a specialist batsman. This, in my mind, is what sets Kallis comfortably ahead of Pollock.

 

[mr_mister]

Fair, but we also hold he lack of centuries against him which is a bit unfair when you mainly batted 7/8... Gilchrist being an exception

 

[mr_mister]

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that a 32 bowling average is better than a 32 batting average in Tests.

Kallis could easily justify Test selection as a genuine frontline pacer. Pollock could not do justify selection as a specialist batsman. This, in my mind, is what sets Kallis comfortably ahead of Pollock.

I can't think of many highly acclaimed bowlers or batsmen who averaged 32 tbqh, it's so middling that I feel either a specialist bowler or specialst bat averaging that number for a length of time would eventually get dropped from their side

Edit - maybe this just applies to pacemen, as Qadir and Harbhajhan averaged around 32

 

[MrPrez]

I can't think of many highly acclaimed bowlers or batsmen who averaged 32 tbqh, it's so middling that I feel either a specialist bowler or specialst bat averaging that number for a length of time would eventually get dropped from their side

Zaheer Khan, Chris Martin, Andre Nel, Steve Harmison and Michael Kasprowicz all averaged around 32 with the ball.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You really should never ask someone to speak on behalf of everyone else. Fortunately for you, I am one of the very few who is eminently qualified to do so, and will indulge your question.

There are a few reasons. Firstly he’s a kiwi, and their efforts are sometimes not as well recognised as others.

Secondly, he had the disadvantage of being around in arguably the best era ever for fast bowling, so he didn’t stand out as much as if he’d been the dominant and stand out bowler in another era, like Steyn as an example.

He may also not get the kudos given his home decks were considered NZ green tops. I think that’s unfair but it’s a perception.

There’s an element of him being so far ahead of his team mates that he would naturally take all the wickets. Again, I don’t know that I agree with that, there’s benefits being a clear number one in a side, and there are others being one of four guns like the WI blokes of the same era.

I also think Hadlee’s batting is being massively over rated here. He was no more than a very average number seven or very good eight at test level, and I say that as someone who saw him bat a lot. He had a great eye, but of the four 80s all rounders, he was by far the weakest with the bat. He was sort of slightly worse than Ian Healy level with the cue imo - no mug at all and scored valuable runs, but nowhere near the batsman the likes of Botham, Khan and Dev were.

Hadlee as a Batsman nowhere near Botham or Kapil.. but far better than McGrath or Steyn. If you are at 400 at 7 and your target is 500 , it's better be Kapil and Hadlee than Kapil and Steyn.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

There is a differece between a batting AR and Bowling AR.
Bowling AR's secondary skill always in need than a Batting AR's secondary skill.

 

[mr_mister]

Zaheer Khan, Chris Martin, Andre Nel, Steve Harmison and Michael Kasprowicz all averaged around 32 with the ball.

They're mostly pretty forgettable though. Like Sherwin Campbell, Ken Rutherford and Marlon Samuels ha