Top Five Cricketers from each country

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Marshall exemplified all that is good and holy about fast bowling. The lowly spinner is reduced to an unsightly defensive option when conditions do not suit him. The great fast bowler puts on a show regardless. Enough pace to shatter a nose + movement either way any day + accuracy. Marshall has all the tools his rivals boast. And more.

Only thing Marshall lacks is the admiration from the contemporaries on Lillee / Akram level.

 

[trundler]

A lot of them hold him in high regard. Akram among them. Border would be another IIRC. Anyway, Warne was voted amongst the 5 Crickets of the Century by the cricketing fraternity too.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

A lot of them hold him in high regard. Akram among them. Border would be another IIRC. Anyway, Warne was voted amongst the 5 Crickets of the Century by the cricketing fraternity too.

Marshall easily the best according to Akram , but Border prefers Akram above anyone iirc.

 

[Burgey]

Only few selects him in an AT 11

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.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think he is notably underrated as a test bowler by many. Pretty much everyone ranks him in the top handful where he belongs.

He is likely underranked in odis. I dont think any of us know what to do with odi rankings for early players. It ends up as viv + garner of the pre 90s players and the rest get forgotten. I have no idea if Hadlee was the 2nd or 20th best odi quick.

He is definitely underranked as a test player. When his batting is thrown into the mix, there is little reason to consider players like steyn/McGrath as his equal, and many rank them ahead

It’s perfectly feasible to rank McGrath or Steyn ahead of Hadlee on bowling alone, and putting either or both in an AT XI, if that floats your boat. If you put any of these blokes in, it’s not like you’re saying the other bloke has special needs ffs. You always end up splitting hairs in these sort of comparisons.

 

[stephen]

Marshall/McGrath/Steyn is my pick for the AT XI fast bowling attack. Steyn and Marshall are good enough for 8 and 9 batsmen and with Warne at 10 you don't need Hadlee's batting. However, you could easily play Hadlee over McGrath and Wasim over Steyn and your bowling attack would still be the best in history.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Marshall/McGrath/Steyn is my pick for the AT XI fast bowling attack. Steyn and Marshall are good enough for 8 and 9 batsmen and with Warne at 10 you don't need Hadlee's batting. However, you could easily play Hadlee over McGrath and Wasim over Steyn and your bowling attack would still be the best in history.

Warne was a better batsman than Steyn.

 

[stephen]

Warne was a better batsman than Steyn.

Possibly. I don't remember Warne winning any games with the bat like Steyn did in the 2008 (? I think) tour here.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Possibly. I don't remember Warne winning any games with the bat like Steyn did in the 2008 (? I think) tour here.

I do not remember Warne winning any matches either, but I am not sure one innings should be the basis of a batting order.
I don't think Warne ever took his batting completely seriously and under performed with the bat and was not the most reliable batsman, but he still averaged a lot more than Steyn in both test and first class cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

Warnes played a ton of useful cameos.

His 50 odd in the first test of the 1997 ashes, we should have been shot out for 60 otherwise

Edit - this was only 47, but out of 118

His 86 out of a last stand of about 100 with Scott Muller against Pak in 99

When Warne got runs too it was rarely in a support role sense like Steyn did Duminy. Warne could dominate bowlers, was obviously not consistent at it though

 

[Bolo]

It’s perfectly feasible to rank McGrath or Steyn ahead of Hadlee on bowling alone, and putting either or both in an AT XI, if that floats your boat. If you put any of these blokes in, it’s not like you’re saying the other bloke has special needs ffs. You always end up splitting hairs in these sort of comparisons.

Hadlee shifted a lot of games with the bat. If he had gone full Chris Martin new Zealands win:loss ratio would have been cut in half or worse, and they would have gone from a competitive side to a dire one.

This is a lot of value add. A quick who adds nothing with the bat needs to be notably ahead with the ball to close this gap. But they aren't notably ahead of 17 years of 5wpm.

You can make a case for an xi being stronger by excluding hadlee for any number of top quicks who cant bat. * But even if this argument is solid and the team comes out stronger in his absence, I dont think you can say any of them had better careers/ were better players. I reckon Hadlee is a greater player than any quick who can't hold a bat in the same way I rate sobers above a specialist bat who cant bowl.

*Not that i agree that it will be a stronger side, but I'm making a different point.

 

[mr_mister]

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.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Warne was one of Australia's best batsmen in the 05 Ashes too.

 

[Burgey]

Hadlee shifted a lot of games with the bat. If he had gone full Chris Martin new Zealands win:loss ratio would have been cut in half or worse, and they would have gone from a competitive side to a dire one.

This is a lot of value add. A quick who adds nothing with the bat needs to be notably ahead with the ball to close this gap. But they aren't notably ahead of 17 years of 5wpm.

You can make a case for an xi being stronger by excluding hadlee for any number of top quicks who cant bat. * But even if this argument is solid and the team comes out stronger in his absence, I dont think you can say any of them had better careers/ were better players. I reckon Hadlee is a greater player than any quick who can't hold a bat in the same way I rate sobers above a specialist bat who cant bowl.

*Not that i agree that it will be a stronger side, but I'm making a different point.

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.

 

[vcs]

Some of Hadlee's most astonishing feats were actually in County Cricket, at a time when all the big guns were playing that competition.

 

[mr_mister]

How far behind Sobers is Hammond as an all rounder?

Obviously equal or close enough with the bat, and his bowling was more than just part time stuff since he averaged about a wicket a test

 

[Burgey]

I don't think Hammond bowled fro anywhere near as long as Sobers did, but I cbf looking it up

 

[Burgey]

Warne was one of Australia's best batsmen in the 05 Ashes too.

Was a one man army that series. Was probably MOTS, but Flintoff deserved it for his clutch performances.

 

[MrPrez]

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.

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.

 

[Burgey]

Warnes played a ton of useful cameos.

His 50 odd in the first test of the 1997 ashes, we should have been shot out for 60 otherwise

Edit - this was only 47, but out of 118

His 86 out of a last stand of about 100 with Scott Muller against Pak in 99

When Warne got runs too it was rarely in a support role sense like Steyn did Duminy. Warne could dominate bowlers, was obviously not consistent at it though

How funny is it watching that 99 WC semi, and Warne's face just melts into his neck because the ****'s so fat he doesn't have a discernible chin.