Your ATG team without Bradman or Sobers

[kyear2]

I would argue that Imran adds more value to the side than does Marshall and hence you need to become sligtly less controversial by adopting this stance

It's not about who adds more value, it's about who are unanimous or near unanimous selections for these sides, which for unknown reasons Imran is not.

Never mind, I am sure you can read the post.


Edit: Sorry, based on what I have said, I still don't understand your post.

 

[watson]

It's not about who adds more value, it's about who are unanimous or near unanimous selections for these sides, which for unknown reasons Imran is not.

Never mind, I am sure you can read the post.


Edit: Sorry, based on what I have said, I still don't understand your post.

Malcolm Marshall is universally accepted as the best and greatest fast bowler of all time. The only other bowler that seriously challenges him is Dennis Lillee. Although I'm sure that there are many people who have an opinion otherwise.

So, as a matter of principle, any 'serious' ATG XI should include the best and greatest fast bowler in the history of the game - Malcolm Marshall.

Imran was a mighty fine bowler, but few cricket writers and enthusiasts promote him as Marshall's equal or better. Instead, Imran is usually categorised as the best and greatest 'bowling allrounder' of all time, with Hadlee a close second. Imran could challenge Sobers' title as the best and greatest 'cricketer' of all time, but not Marshall's status.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

As far as unanimous decisions go I think from Bradman to Sobers is not to big a jump, but while Marshall sits third on the unanimous scale it's a bit further down. But each to their own.

 

[smash84]

Malcolm Marshall is universally accepted as the best and greatest fast bowler of all time. The only other bowler that seriously challenges him is Dennis Lillee. Although I'm sure that there are many people who have an opinion otherwise.

So, as a matter of principle, any 'serious' ATG XI should include the best and greatest fast bowler in the history of the game - Malcolm Marshall.

Imran was a mighty fine bowler, but few cricket writers and enthusiasts promote him as Marshall's equal or better. Instead, Imran is usually categorised as the best and greatest 'bowling allrounder' of all time, with Hadlee a close second. Imran could challenge Sobers' title as the best and greatest 'cricketer' of all time, but not Marshall's status.

Of course Imran wouldn't be challenging Marshall's status but let's say that keeping the batting order constant would you prefer 4 more Marshalls in your side or 4 more Imrans?

Imran just adds so much value to the side being an allrounder. Let's say you have Marshall, Lillee, Holding, and Warne as a combo. The other combo is Hadlee, Holding, Imran and Warne. To me the latter combination makes the side much much stroner than the first one, hence the concept of adding value. So in the overall context of a team how much value a player adds to the side is important. Which is what I was referring to.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Screw Imran
I'd have 4 Marshalls , 3 Bradmans, 3 Vivs, and 1 Gilchrist

 

[smash84]

Screw Imran
I'd have 4 Marshalls , 3 Bradmans, 3 Vivs, and 1 Gilchrist

I'll have 6 Bradmans, 4 Imrans and 1 Gilchrist, and then I'll screw your team

 

[kyear2]

Of course Imran wouldn't be challenging Marshall's status but let's say that keeping the batting order constant would you prefer 4 more Marshalls in your side or 4 more Imrans?

Imran just adds so much value to the side being an allrounder. Let's say you have Marshall, Lillee, Holding, and Warne as a combo. The other combo is Hadlee, Holding, Imran and Warne. To me the latter combination makes the side much much stroner than the first one, hence the concept of adding value. So in the overall context of a team how much value a player adds to the side is important. Which is what I was referring to.

But this is not an argument about value at all. I don't even know how we got there. I am not arguing over selections or who should make the team. I was simply making an argument That Hobbs and Marshall by their consensus or near consensus inclusion in such xi's deserve to be grouped with Bradman and Sobers as automatic or penciled in selections.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Baz Richards
3. Black Bradman Headley
4. Prince Lara
5. Nugget Miller
6. Little Dog Pollock
7. Imran
8. Deafy Tallon
9. Warnie
10. Maco Marshall
11. DK Lillee

 

[smash84]

But this is not an argument about value at all. I don't even know how we got there. I am not arguing over selections or who should make the team. I was simply making an argument That Hobbs and Marshall by their consensus or near consensus inclusion in such xi's deserve to be grouped with Bradman and Sobers as automatic or penciled in selections.

My point is that it is easy to justify Sobers and Don's inclusion in such lists because of the value they bring to the side. Can't say Marshall's value to the side is as easily justified even if he is picked by pretty much all the "experts" as the number one choice of bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd bring in Headley and Miller, so:

1. Hobbs
2. Grace (or Hutton if it's just a Test side)
3. Headley
4. Tendulkar
5. Hammond
6. Miller
7. Gilchrist
8. Imran
9. Hadlee
10. Marshall
11. Murali

 

[WindieWeathers]

IMO there is no debate about Macko!!..

Bradman= best batsman...no argument

Sobers= best alrounder...everyone knows

Macko= best pacer... and that's pretty much set in stone in my view

Therefore any serious list should have these three in it...other areas you can debate but i can't see how you could argue against macko when the vast majority see him as the best in his field.

 

[Prince EWS]

I reckon we should just do the exercise and discuss the teams we come up with instead of squabbling about whether other players should also be excluded tbh. It wasn't the point of the thread.

 

[Eds]

I'm definitely going to cheat and assume it's not just a test side so I can play Grace and thus a proper middle-order bat rather than Miller.

1. Jack Hobbs
2. WG Grace (5)
3. George Headley
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. Wally Hammond (6)
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Imran Khan (3)
9. Malcolm Marshall (1)
10. Shane Warne (4)
11. Glenn McGrath (2)

 

[smash84]

IMO there is no debate about Macko!!..

Bradman= best batsman...no argument

Sobers= best alrounder...everyone knows

Macko= best pacer... and that's pretty much set in stone in my view

Therefore any serious list should have the first two in it...other areas you can debate .

fixed

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm definitely going to cheat and assume it's not just a test side so I can play Grace and thus a proper middle-order bat rather than Miller.

1. Jack Hobbs
2. WG Grace (5)
3. George Headley
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. Wally Hammond (6)
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Imran Khan (3)
9. Malcolm Marshall (1)
10. Shane Warne (4)
11. Glenn McGrath (2)

Miller was a proper middle order batsman. Don't be fooled by his test match stats. The lad could bat at a level far higher than those numbers. His lowish numbers of wickets too was due also to his back injury sustained during the war. If you're going to hold a war injury against him that's your decision. But don't dismiss him based on stats.

 

[Jarquis]

I missed the bit where Eds criticised Miller's stats and left him out because of them

 

[kyear2]

My point is that it is easy to justify Sobers and Don's inclusion in such lists because of the value they bring to the side. Can't say Marshall's value to the side is as easily justified even if he is picked by pretty much all the "experts" as the number one choice of bowler.

First of all I proposed two names, you are only focusing on one. Second of all the OP never stated anything about value to team but rather general consensus. All I was Suggesting that based on similar consensus and the premise that most if not all serious ATG teams also include both names that they also be included.

Don't know how value came into the discussion or the argument for the value of bowling All rounders.

 

[kyear2]

As far as unanimous decisions go I think from Bradman to Sobers is not to big a jump, but while Marshall sits third on the unanimous scale it's a bit further down. But each to their own.

Fair point, and it was just a suggestion (for Hobbs and Marshall).

Anyways Monk, sorry to derail the thread so will leave it at that.

 

[WindieWeathers]

fixed

What? surely you can't "fix" a point you apparently missed?

 

[OverratedSanity]

fixed

So you're agreeing that Marshall's status as the best pacer is set in stone but you're not sure you'd have him in am AT XI? Wut?