Best Bowling Combination Possible

[Ikki]

Of those you have above, 3+1:

Marshall, McGrath, Lillee and Warne.

I think for a greatest ever line-up you need 3 genuine ATG pacers. A possible Australian line-up I like is: Lillee, McGrath, Miller/Lindwall, Warne and O'Reilly.

[harsh.skm]

Of the combinations I listed in the beginning of the thread, I liked this one a lot

Marshall, Garner, McGrath, Murali

Replace McGrath with Hadlee and it's all the same for me. I like this combo because of its wicket-taking ability. I have always felt that the best measure of a good bowler is how quickly and cheaply they take their wickets. Just because someone is better to watch would not make me want them in my team. Yes, I would rather watch Lillee, Wasim, and Waqar than Garner, McGrath and Hadlee, but I could watch them on the other team too. If I want a winning combo, I think these bowlers are the best. Then this business about getting the best batsmen out the most, or having legendary duels with great batsmen seems borne more out of romanticism than anything else. Lastly, variation plays a key role here. Marshall was a complete bowler, he had everything in his arsenal, including reverse swing. McGrath is the corridor specialist, who also had a huge number of variations, again including reverse swing. Garner is the guy who I think would be an ideal third variant. Booming bouncers, and brilliant yorkers.

Murali as the spin specialist, just whiskers ahead of Warne for me. Let's not go there

[lockton2skipper]

holding roberts marshall and garner, finest quartet ever

[fredfertang]

holding roberts marshall and garner, finest quartet ever

I agree, although the later, in my view slightly inferior combinations, had a more impressive record.

[harsh.skm]

The way it works for me is this:

1st Pacer - Pick between Marshall and Lillee; Currently, I prefer Marshall. Complete all round bowler.

2nd Pacer - Pick between McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose; Currently I prefer McGrath. Best corridor bowler with lots of variation.

3rd Pacer - Pick one to best complement the first two. This is tricky. Pick between Garner, Wasim, Barnes and Waqar; Currently pick Garner. Deadly bouncers and brilliant yorkers. Good variation after the other two.

Spinner - Pick between you-know-whos.

I used to pick Wasim, but then realized that both Marshall and McGrath were pretty adept at reverse swing themselves (especially Marshall), and had great sub-continent records. Not saying this negates the usefulness of Wasim, who is still very much a front-runner for this spot, but it made me look at other options with more care.

Barnes I do not know what to do with. No way of judging him. Waqar's peak makes me consider him. My opinions are not fixed for too long on this topic. Primarily why I started this thread, and always use "currently" while talking about it.

Could anybody else share their model for selecting their attacks?

[Agent Nationaux]

1. Out and Out fast - Waqar or Marshall
2. Left Hander - Wasim
3. Seam and Swing bowler - McGrath, Hadlee and Imran
4. Spinner - Warne

[Saint Kopite]

Marshall, Wasim, Ambrose, Warne.

[Eds]

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.

It's not "Larwood dissing". Suggesting he isn't the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly the gravest insult.

I personally find it incredible that anyone could rate him above someone like Marshall. Seems ridiculous to me.

[smalishah84]

Marshall....were pretty adept at reverse swing themselves (especially Marshall), and had great sub-continent records.?

Can you shed a bit more light on this?

I heard one other member say this but didn't really back his statement.

I don't really recall Marshall being very adept at reverse swing. When did you see him do it or be successful at it? Do you have any video of him doing it? (I do know McG could reverse it a bit, and you could probably find videos on youtube too)

[Mike5181]

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.

There's plenty of bowlers with quality FC records tbh. Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh etc.

[watson]

If you play Imran instead of Sobers then the attack has the best of everything;

Imran-Marshall-Lillee-Warne-Murali

[Himannv]

It's not "Larwood dissing". Suggesting he isn't the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly the gravest insult.

I personally find it incredible that anyone could rate him above someone like Marshall. Seems ridiculous to me.

I just feel that someone rating him highly isn't necessarily wrong. While he's certainly not my favourite, he's definitely an ATG in my book. He's certainly good enough to be considered in someones top 5 IMO.

There's plenty of bowlers with quality FC records tbh. Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh etc.

I'm certainly not taking anything away from any of those bowlers. The reason I brought up his FC record was to counter the point brought up about his less-than-stellar Test stats.

[Eds]

I just feel that someone rating him highly isn't necessarily wrong. While he's certainly not my favourite, he's definitely an ATG in my book. He's certainly good enough to be considered in someones top 5 IMO.

And we don't agree, hence the posts arguing as such. It's definitely not "dissing him" to suggest he shouldn't be in someone's top five - he has 78 Test wickets @ 28.35.

I'm certainly not taking anything away from any of those bowlers. The reason I brought up his FC record was to counter the point brought up about his less-than-stellar Test stats.

To be one of the greatest bowlers of all-time you need to dominate all levels. Larwood was extremely effective during the bodyline series, but at the end of the day, the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Donald, Holding, Garner etc. were all better at taking more wickets for less runs. And that's what cricket's about.

You could argue his stats are tainted by a number of factors (Bradman, for one), but looking at other bowlers from the same timeframe, such as Gubby Allen (81 @ 29.37), Ken Farnes (60 @ 28.65), Bill Bowes (68 @ 22.33) and George Geary (46 @ 29.41) - they've all got extremely familiar records. Why do we not consider Bowes an ATG? Or Farnes?

I'm not arguing against the impact Larwood/Jardine/bodyline had on the game, and I rate the aforementioned duo higher than most, I'm just speechless you could even consider him as one of the best bowlers ever. Just doesn't sit well with me.

[kyear2]

If you play Imran instead of Sobers then the attack has the best of everything;

Imran-Marshall-Lillee-Warne-Murali

And correspondingly weakens the batting with Imran batting at 6.

[Mike5181]

And correspondingly weakens the batting with Imran batting at 6.

Gilchrist would bat six, surely?