Great bowlers all, but no way is Lindwall, Larwood and Trueman better than Marshall and Barnes played all of 27 tests on substandard pitches. When I did a list of most persons AT XI's the only person who didn't choose Marshall was Benuad.
They loathed loosing, but yes I can believe that reason. And by the way, no one was less subtle, more aggressive and less sporting than Lillee and Lindwall wasn't too shy with the bumpers either.
I don't really care about Barnes, because like most early era players, he's too hard to judge. So if someone includes him, or doesn't include him, I don't really mind.
I assume his point is that fast bowlers should be aggressive, but that when there are four of them, bowling slow over rates with a lot of bouncers and balls that are ridiculously difficult to score from, it makes for very unattractive, monotonous cricket. Fwiw I agree with that.
Now that I see which six he shortlisted, I see your point. Maybe I'm just used to seeing Marshall named as one of the very best fast bowlers, so when someone doesn't have him in their top 6, I find it exceedingly strange. If it had been someone on CW who had said Marshall wasn't in the top 6 fast bowlers ever, I would disagree vehemently... I think most here would too.
If we were discussing the '70's then I would be more inclined to agree, Marshall did have a good bouncer, but he seldom over used it. Garner was a more short a length bowler and he didn't have Marshall's variety, but he didn't over do it either. Holding got most of his wickets LBW and bolwed, kind of hard to do that when dropping bouncers every ball, though he was the fondest of the bunch when it came to the bouncers, but he too gets a bad rap based on some of his actions in the '70's namely againts the Indian's and agains Close.
I remember the Ambrose/Bishop/Patterson/Marshall/Walsh type era. I loved them. I don't disagree at all. However, I absolutely love watching spin bowlers. If someone said to me "would you rather watch Marshall or Warne bowl a spell?", I'd choose Warne every time.
Barnes played proportionately more games v his strongest opponent than Murali. It is a consequence common to most cricketers from an era leading up the the 2nd war. That is all I'm saying. If given a test program similar to modern players where they proportion their games more evenly against a variety of opponents their figures would improve.
The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f***
I can understand the fun in picking ATG teams but they really are a nonsense. But so is cricket (and all games) really. A fun and engaging nonsense. I love the game and its past just as much as I always have. I lost interest in ATG sides when it occured that players really only qualify where they excel in part of their careers. So you would have to qualify your selection with say the Miller of 46-50 not the Miller of his last years. Same with Lindwall. Or the Imran when he batted and bowled not the man who batted really well when his bowling went off. I knew I'd lost interest when I started to mock my own selections: "Yeah Richards is good but would he be able to play Thor bowling balls of lightning if your side was playing a team of Norse Gods!" 
That list is incorrect if citing Dickie Birds autobiography, page 311. His ATG XI is madeup of the players he has seen in action, and is;
Interesting. He had the best view of anyone to assess those guys.
That team is awesome. Absolutely awesome.
He's one of the best offies ever.
There haven't been that many great off spinners though.
From memory that was written very early in Warne's career.