Best Bowling Combination Possible

[Monk]

I usually go for the three best quicks and the best spinner. If picking an ATG team, I always have Sobers at #5 or 6, so there is a high quality fifth bowler.

So, for me it's-

Lillee
Marshall
McGrath

and

Warne


The others I consider strongly are Wasim (left arm and a wizard), SF Barnes (but I find that early era thing hard to gauge), Ambrose (who I think was a better bowler than McGrath, but McGrath was more consistent. Ambrose could be hot and cold depending on his attitude) and O'Reilly (really hard to split him and Warne, but Warne's mongrel and will to win is so good).

[Jager]

For 'well-rounded' I'd go Larwood, Davidson, Waqar, Warne and Miller.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Jager

For 'well-rounded' I'd go Larwood, Davidson, Waqar, Warne and Miller.

I have to ask....why Larwood and Waqar over Lillee and Marshall (not that I'm right, but I'd be especially interested why you rate them over Marshall in particular).

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Monk

I usually go for the three best quicks and the best spinner. If picking an ATG team, I always have Sobers at #5 or 6, so there is a high quality fifth bowler.

So, for me it's-

Lillee
Marshall
McGrath

and

Warne


The others I consider strongly are Wasim (left arm and a wizard), SF Barnes (but I find that early era thing hard to gauge), Ambrose (who I think was a better bowler than McGrath, but McGrath was more consistent. Ambrose could be hot and cold depending on his attitude) and O'Reilly (really hard to split him and Warne, but Warne's mongrel and will to win is so good).

Exactly how I feel about Mcgrath vs Ambrose, very similar to Tendulkar vs Lara, the former has the weight of numbers and consistentcy, while though at their respective bests few if any can top the latters.

Back on topic, Wasim is very tempting to put in such a conversation because of his variety and use of the old ball, Barnes is so hard to rate because no one alive has seen him bowl and most reports of his bowling is so conflicting. Also shared your thoughs on Warne and Tiger, but Awarne's pace and variety is better suited for the modern game. Like your reasoning though.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Monk

I have to ask....why Larwood and Waqar over Lillee and Marshall (not that I'm right, but I'd be especially interested why you rate them over Marshall in particular).

+1

Loved Waqar growing up and a big part of me still thinks him the better over Akram, but his peak was so short and he was a high risk, high reward bowler, and regarding Larwood, well ..................that always boggles my mind.

[Monk]

I think you could argue that for a year or two at his peak, Waqar was probably the best fast bowler ever. He had it all, extreme pace, swinging it both ways, vicious bouncer and ridiculously good yorker. At times he looked unplayable.

[Himannv]

Why is there so much Larwood dissing going on here? By all accounts, he was the best fast bowler of his generation and was considered extremely quick and also exceptionally accurate. His FC record is incredible despite that period being known for its batting friendly pitches.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Himannv

Why is there so much Larwood dissing going on here? By all accounts, he was the best fast bowler of his generation and was considered extremely quick and also exceptionally accurate. His FC record is incredible despite that period being known for its batting friendly pitches.

I think some people just fail to understand why some others rate him really highly.

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think some people just fail to understand why some others rate him really highly.

Well it's a common problem with any bowler who we haven't seen much footage of. There will always be people who think he's amazing and people who would be a bit more sceptical. However, I don't see many people questioning the credentials of players like Barnes and O'Reilly.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Himannv

Well it's a common problem with any bowler who we haven't seen much footage of. There will always be people who think he's amazing and people who would be a bit more sceptical. However, I don't see many people questioning the credentials of players like Barnes and O'Reilly.

I think the stats come in to play a bit here. O'Reilly and Barnes had ridiculously good stats, while Larwood's were so-so at test level (I know stats aren't everything etc). Larwood's contemporary, Bill Voce, had virtually exactly the same stats (average and SR) as Larwood.

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think the stats come in to play a bit here. O'Reilly and Barnes had ridiculously good stats, while Larwood's were so-so at test level (I know stats aren't everything etc). Larwood's contemporary, Bill Voce, had virtually exactly the same stats (average and SR) as Larwood.

I agree that Larwood's test stats aren't the best, but there could be plenty of reasons for this. There certainly isn't anything shabby about his FC stats.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think you could argue that for a year or two at his peak, Waqar was probably the best fast bowler ever. He had it all, extreme pace, swinging it both ways, vicious bouncer and ridiculously good yorker. At times he looked unplayable.

And therein, I suppose, lies the problem - I completely agree, but how long does someone have to be at their peak to deserve to be up there with the great and the good? Jack Iverson always strikes me as a good example, and probably Alf Valentine and Sonny Ramadhin are too - to my mind they are all the "wrong" side of the line, but for me Waqar did enough

[Dan]

Another combination:

Larwood
Lillee
Verity
Laker
Miller


Wanted a left arm spinner, then a classical offie to turn it the opposite way.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Smali in "I'm all over a post supporting Imran" shocker.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

And therein, I suppose, lies the problem - I completely agree, but how long does someone have to be at their peak to deserve to be up there with the great and the good? Jack Iverson always strikes me as a good example, and probably Alf Valentine and Sonny Ramadhin are too - to my mind they are all the "wrong" side of the line, but for me Waqar did enough

Waqar, yeh, almost...

It's hard to judge with quick bowlers. Because of the nature of fast bowling, most peak for about two years, some a bit longer. There careers sometimes go for a lot longer, and they are still good, but not as good as they once were. So, if you're a flat out cricket nerd who loves discussing ATG teams, do you judge them on their absolute peak period, or their whole career, or a combo of both? Probably the latter.

That's why McGrath is such a freak. Maintained really high consistency and strike power for so long.