Best Attack

[subshakerz]

McGrath actually only averaged 27 @ a little over 3 wickets per match vs SA, who were usually the best opposition in his career.

If we're nitpicking Steyn and Imran's 27-28 averages in certain countries to say their away records weren't that good, why is McGrath having a merely ok record vs the strongest opposition of his era never mentioned? I am not trolling, this is a serious question.

Because Kyear already has his comfort zone and doesn't like to be disturbed.

 

[smash84]

That's his excuse: 'Oh wait but I put Imran as 6/7 best pacer' (the highest he can legitimately place Imran without losing face) therefore he feels it fine to discredit Imran in any way.

The irony is that kyear2 keeps harping on about Imran's home umpires and other nonsense while conveniently ignoring that WI's stellar record of 15 years without a home loss came about because Imran was denied key wickets with atrocious umpiring.

 

[subshakerz]

I always find it funny how many people pooh on Donald's record vs Aus and give Mcgrath a pass vs SA. It's mostly the same series, and Aus had stronger batting.

McGrath also has blemishes in SL and Pakistan. Yet we go on as if McGrath has a flawless record.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, the results of the poll pretty much show that Imran and Hadlee are neck and neck in the esteem of CW members, as transcendent cricketers, and value adding bowlers, with Imran currently 1 vote ahead (this has been a consensus for pretty much the history of this forum btw). @kyear2 in shambles.

Thing is Imran isn't so much worse of a bowler than the rest of this grouping. The comparison I always liked for Imran was with Warne. Neither of their aggregate stats over a career blow you away in comparison to competitors, but they have special selling points that legitimately should bump them up over those numbers.

For Warne, he was the most conditions independent (although not opposition independent) strike spinner in recent history. For Imran, there's a significant enough period of time where he could likely be the greatest bowler ever, regardless of drop off in later (and very early) career. Those aren't things that you can just handwave away as being not useful or overrated. They brought meaningful value to their teams because of these attributes that the aggregate stats don't capture.

For Imran's case, you add to that the fact that he is the best out of these top tier bowlers in the batting department, by far, and there's no wonder he's a no-brainer pick (often first pick in a draft), to round out an ATG attack.

 

[shortpitched713]

Also btw, in spite of my praise of Warne, I do think Murali would be my pick for a spinner on this team comfortably, regardless of batting. But playing within the constraints of this game, is what led me to the pick I ended up going to.

In actuality my ideal attack would always include

Imran
McGrath
Murali
Any of Hadlee/Marshall/Ambrose/Steyn, don't mind too much which.

 

[kyear2]

It's not just about being able to learn reverse, it's about having an action and pace that maximises its effect. Steyn would be far more destructive with reverse than Cummins can ever be.



We are making mountains out of molehills when it comes to the differences between the top half dozen pacers. The idea that you can ignore a test quality bat among them is silly and in the real world nobody will entertain the idea.

Unless it's Ambrose right?

Dude, the poll is tied, and more people have voted against the Imran option than for it. When are you going to understand that not everyone has to think the same way you do.

Imran wasn't the bowler that the other 3 are, and no one from that era ever said he was, and he was suspect away from home when compared to the others, there's no getting around that unless you're actively trying to ignore it. In no major country did he average close to 20 /21. 28 in India and Australia, 25 in the Caribbean, will give him a pass for England due to the first tour, but the only country he was a performer on par with the others was in Pakistan, the only way you don't see that is if you don't want to.

And btw, Wisden and Cricinfo both omitted him from their teams, so let's not pretend that I'm on an island here.

And again, I'm not saying he's a bad choice, but you're convinced that another one isn't viable

 

[Himannv]

I'd typically go with Marshall, McGoat, Paddles, and Warne but I think Steyn might offer something different so went with him in place of Hadlee.

 

[Bolo.]

McGrath also has blemishes in SL and Pakistan. Yet we go on as if McGrath has a flawless record.

That's running too far into lolsamplesize for me.

I do think it's part of a bigger trend for him though. He crushed when circumstances were in his favour. He did well, but wasn't particularly threatening for a bowler of his quality when they weren't.

All of the channel seamers (besides probably Garner) follow this pattern. I tend to prefer bowlers who are more threatening across conditions, but he was so exceptional at his MO that picking a style preference above a quality one would not make much sense.

 

[subshakerz]

Thing is Imran isn't so much worse of a bowler than the rest of this grouping. The comparison I always liked for Imran was with Warne. Neither of their aggregate stats over a career blow you away in comparison to competitors, but they have special selling points that legitimately should bump them up over those numbers.

The thing is Kyear is out to prove that guys like McGrath and Hadlee are outright superior than Imran and others as if they belong in a separate class. Whereas the reality is that based on conditions you may select one bowler over the other.

 

[subshakerz]

That's running too far into lolsamplesize for me.

McGrath has 5 tests over two series in Pakistan which is the minimum for me.

I do think it's part of a bigger trend for him though. He crushed when circumstances were in his favour. He did well, but wasn't particularly threatening for a bowler of his quality when they weren't.

Yeah McGrath definitely could be blunted. I think just having an extra yard of pace kind of helps.

All of the channel seamers (besides probably Garner) follow this pattern. I tend to prefer bowlers who are more threatening across conditions, but he was so exceptional at his MO that picking a style preference above a quality one would not make much sense.

Agreed.

 

[subshakerz]

Unless it's Ambrose right?

Not related to the point you are making.

Dude, the poll is tied, and more people have voted against the Imran option than for it. When are you going to understand that not everyone has to think the same way you do.

He is leading.

Imran wasn't the bowler that the other 3 are, and no one from that era ever said he was, and he was suspect away from home when compared to the others, there's no getting around that unless you're actively trying to ignore it. In no major country did he average close to 20 /21. 28 in India and Australia, 25 in the Caribbean, will give him a pass for England due to the first tour, but the only country he was a performer on par with the others was in Pakistan, the only way you don't see that is if you don't want to.

Only blind average reading without context will lead you to believe he wasn't worldclass in most countries. You exposed yourself for saying he wasn't ATG standards in the WI. That's laughably bad.

And btw, Wisden and Cricinfo both omitted him from their teams, so let's not pretend that I'm on an island here.

And again, I'm not saying he's a bad choice, but you're convinced that another one isn't viable

Um, I can name several other ATG XIs where Imran did appear.

But again, it doesn't have to down with your rating, but your poor criteria for rating.

 

[Coronis]

Can you two like, go visit Imran in prison and hammer this whole thing out?

 

[Bolo.]

McGrath has 5 tests over two series in Pakistan which is the minimum for me.


Yeah McGrath definitely could be blunted. I think just having an extra yard of pace kind of helps.


Agreed.

5 could be as low as one series. It's way too low for me. You are going to run into issues like form/fitness, conditions, luck, and just natural variance. You can sometimes use 5 to get a general idea about quality in a place, but it's not particularly likely it will be accurate, and at times it will be extremely inaccurate.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, always conveniently forget, in cricket everyone must bat but not everyone must bowl in order for a result to be achieved. It is by design. Hence bowling all rounders are inherently more valuable especially if they are ATG fast bowlers. It's not too difficult to understand.

So hence the backbone of every great team has been bowling all rounders, wait no they weren't? But surely all the best teams had them? Wait no as well?



Did you ever watch them bat?

You guys keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true. Great teams need decent openers and a great middle order bat, at least 2 great bowlers (one new ball) and a great cordon to maximize chances. Everything around that just needs to be solid.
You don't need to be an all rounder to step up when and put your head down and bat a bit when you're in trouble, most tail enders have done it, and even the great "all rounders" fail more than they don't.
Even having a 5th bowling options is more consistently reliable than a bowling all rounder because all you have to do is bowl a few overs while not being taken part to rest the main bowlers, any wicket is a bonus.

We ignore imperial and historical evidence to go on accumulate stats, they've never proven to be more valuable, that's a concept primally made up on CW. Cricinfo and Wisden focused primarily on bowling for their teams, and neither had a bowling all rounder.


And no, nah never. Watched the two greatest teams ever and never watched either bat.

 

[subshakerz]

You guys keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true. Great teams need decent openers and a great middle order bat, at least 2 great bowlers (one new ball) and a great cordon to maximize chances. Everything around that just needs to be solid.

It's not about need. It's about making a team better, and lower order strength does that.

You don't need to be an all rounder to step up when and put your head down and bat a bit when you're in trouble, most tail enders have done it, and even the great "all rounders" fail more than they don't.

You might as well discredit any 30-odd averaging middle order bat by that metric. Since the extra runs don't matter, let's just have tailenders for the entire XI. After all, I am sure a few can bail us out when in trouble which is all batsmen are expected to do anyways.

We ignore imperial and historical evidence to go on accumulate stats, they've never proven to be more valuable, that's a concept primally made up on CW. Cricinfo and Wisden focused primarily on bowling for their teams, and neither had a bowling all rounder.

Stop this silly criteria of looking at how someone fits in XYZ team to value a cricketer. Objectively, adding a batting set to an ATG bowler makes them more valuable.

 

[kyear2]

The lengths that kyear2 will go to prove that Imran doesn't deserve an ATG status at all is funny

inb4, he says, "I consider him an ATG, he is just outside my top 5, but you can easily place him anywhere from top 10 to top 100. But the gap between the top 3 and top 5 is extremely small. The gap gets really big when you come down to number 6 and then again becomes minuscule onwards"

Of course the dude is an ATG, period. Imran was incredibly valuable for Pakistan. As far as bowlers go, he's 8th (same as the community) and 6th among the fast bowlers.
Strange you mention gaps because @subshakerz thinks Imran is 5th and there's a big gap to Ambrose.

I think there's a noticable gap after the top 3, and I think Steyn is closer to them than he is to Imran. From looking at their careers,.in neutral or overseas conditions I trust Steyn more, not much more to it. I have Imran ahead of the spinners, then Ambrose, then Imran. So don't try to portray that I think he's miles behind or not rated.

As a cricketer, yes I do rate Imran lower than most, but 1. I don't rate lower order batting as highly as you guys do. Even so, if you're the 8th best bowler how do u jump everyone and the top rated batsmen to 2nd or 3rd over all, especially when I have 3 bowlers clearly ahead of you. Kallis is 13th ish, does he jump everyone else who were better in the primary discipline? And he has two additional skills to learn on, and I believe all 3 secondary skills are basically equally relevant, something everyone else disregards.

So no, I don't hate Imran, but I'm also not choosing the 8th best bowler to start because he batted better than the others, especially when I think the batting is strong enough.
Where we differ is while I disagree with you, I acknowledge that it's a viable option, something you refuse to see the others. If I'm chosing 3 bowlers, I'm picking the best 3, or as close to it as possible..

And don't get me wrong, I get it. Part of it is share you grew up. To win in the Caribbean or at our two main rivals, you needed pace and catching. The ball bounced and carried and that's how you got people out. We didn't have nor care for batting depth, we chose the best bowlers and blew people out, your batsmen will score the runs, when called upon, Marshall / Warne etc did their part. It really worked out pretty well.

 

[subshakerz]

Of course the dude is an ATG, period. Imran was incredibly valuable for Pakistan. As far as bowlers go, he's 8th (same as the community) and 6th among the fast bowlers.
Strange you mention gaps because @subshakerz thinks Imran is 5th and there's a big gap to Ambrose.

We don't care where you rate him as much as how you rate him.

I think there's a noticable gap after the top 3, and I think Steyn is closer to them than he is to Imran. From looking at their careers,.in neutral or overseas conditions I trust Steyn more, not much more to it. I have Imran ahead of the spinners, then Ambrose, then Imran. So don't try to portray that I think he's miles behind or not rated.

Please explain what in Steyns overall record distances him from Imran?

Please explain why Hadlee in England and McGrath in SA meet ATG standards but not Imran in WI?

It just seems obvious that in one case averages don't matter and in the other they do.

 

[kyear2]

That's his excuse: 'Oh wait but I put Imran as 6/7 best pacer' (the highest he can legitimately place Imran without losing face) therefore he feels it fine to discredit Imran in any way.

That's disingenuous, because 1 that's where literally everyone but you put him. Nothing to do with saving face. I think him, Donald and Lillee are close but because of the reverse, he's ahead.

But what I find hilarious and disingenuous about your arguments.

Your top tier batsmen, each best from their era Hobbs, Bradman, Hutton, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith.

You say that's the best from each era and Lara was clearly behind Sachin.. Imran was the third of his era.

And the same way you say we revise history to say Kallis was great, we do the same with Imran to say he was easily the best all rounder of the era, when we both know some saw Botham as and they were collectively seen as a group. Now don't get me wrong, Imran was, the same way Kallis was, just because it's not recognized everywhere doesn't make it so, but that's the inconsistency of your argument.

So the same way those batsmen mentioned were the best, Marshall, McGrath and Steyn were also comfortable the best of their eras as well.

 

[subshakerz]

That's disingenuous, because 1 that's where literally everyone but you put him. Morning to do with saving face. I think him, Donald and Lillee are close but because of the reverse, he's ahead.

But what I find hilarious and disingenuous about your arguments.

Your top tier batsmen, each best from their era Hobbs, Bradman, Hutton, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith.

You say that's the best from each era and Lara was clearly behind Sachin.. Imran was the third of his era.

I don't rate bats and bowlers the exact same way. I use the number one era to identify bats in the top tier because there are simply more bats, they are all statistically closer and rep helps sift out the best of the best.

But nice deflection.

 

[Coronis]

and even the great "all rounders" fail more than they don't.

No stake in this argument but lets be real, even the great batsmen fail more often than they don’t.

Carry on.