Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Starfighter]

Shackleton
Cartwright
Thomson (Ian)

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Marshall
Mcgrath
Akram

Marshall will be first change.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Marshall Hadlee Imran. McGrath missing out seems just wrong but I really like this combo.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall Hadlee Imran. McGrath missing out seems just wrong but I really like this combo.

Reason I have McGrath over Hadlee:

Height, you want a bowler to exploit the most bouncy surfaces.

Marginally better at seam

Better contrast twitch Marshall opening the bowling.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Reason I have McGrath over Hadlee:

Height, you want a bowler to exploit the most bouncy surfaces.

Marginally better at seam

Better contrast twitch Marshall opening the bowling.

Reasons I have Hadlee over McGrath:

Lone warrior, marginally better at swing and definitely better at running through sides.

20 more runs every innings.

 

[subshakerz]

Reasons I have Hadlee over McGrath:

Lone warrior, marginally better at swing and definitely better at running through sides.

20 more runs every innings.

The former doesn't matter as much in this attack as it does how he complements others. McGrath has his fair share of occasions of running through sides too.

Latter yes it's fair.

 

[kyear2]

Reason I have McGrath over Hadlee:

Height, you want a bowler to exploit the most bouncy surfaces.

Marginally better at seam

Better contrast twitch Marshall opening the bowling.

Exactly.

Plus McGrath did it in a more difficult era, McGrath has a substantially higher peer rating, was the undeniably best bowler of his era, while Hadlee was behind at least 2 if not 3 if his, and finally....

Why choose 3 bowlers from the same era. No one is choosing 3 batsmen from the 30's / 40's nor 2000's.

But yeah, Marshall and McGrath perfectly compliment each other with McGrath's height and bounce, seam, unmatched accuracy and continued domination into the flat era acts as his differentiators and seals it for me. The fact that he's cricket's version of Brady or Bill Russell makes him all but undeniable.

As great as the team was, when he was absent, the team didn't win.

 

[kyear2]

Reasons I have Hadlee over McGrath:

Lone warrior, marginally better at swing and definitely better at running through sides.

20 more runs every innings.

Was he better at running through sides or had less completion for wickets?

I would suggest the latter.

 

[smash84]

The former doesn't matter as much in this attack as it does how he complements others. McGrath has his fair share of occasions of running through sides too.

Latter yes it's fair.

McGrath was as meme a tailender as any that ever played. The difference in their batting ability is so much and given that there is hardly any difference in their bowling quality that for me its a no brainer.

I don't buy into the BS that McGrath could somehow get top batsmen while other top bowlers would get smashed all over the park especially someone who could bowl as tight as Hadlee.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was he better at running through sides or had less completion for wickets?

I would suggest the latter.

1985 Australia.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath was as meme a tailender as any that ever played. The difference in their batting ability is so much and given that there is hardly any difference in their bowling quality that for me its a no brainer.

I don't buy into the BS that McGrath could somehow get top batsmen while other top bowlers would get smashed all over the park especially someone who could bowl as tight as Hadlee.

The fact that we're even considering batting for the opening bowler who's batting at 11 means we're missing the entire plot and not in line with how the vast majority of selectors operate.

What this line of argument says is that you can't select a bowler based purely on how good he is as a bowler?

Nonsense.

If Bumrah proves himself worthy and gets to 300 wickets, no issue with an attack of Marshall, Warne, McGrath, Bumrah. You have an AT batting line up.

Pick the best bowlers, as does every pundit, former player and journalist / historian does, as evidenced by the fact that Hadlee never makes such teams.

 

[smash84]

What this line of argument says is that you can't select a bowler based purely on how good he is as a bowler?

Nonsense.

No, the real nonsense is believing that McGrath is somehow so much better than Hadlee that he can overcome the meme tailender skills that he brings to the table when being considered for selection over Hadlee.

There is barely any gap in their ability to take wickets. McGrath wasn't some superman who would have made Bangladesh a super team in cricket. He benefited immensely from playing in an ATG team with one of the finest batting units ever assembled. He was a great bowler, sure, but he wasn't some god living in some imaginary tier above the mere mortal Hadlee.

 

[Batbowl]

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn

 

[kyear2]

No, the real nonsense is believing that McGrath is somehow so much better than Hadlee that he can overcome the meme tailender skills that he brings to the table when being considered for selection over Hadlee.

There is barely any gap in their ability to take wickets. McGrath wasn't some superman who would have made Bangladesh a super team in cricket. He benefited immensely from playing in an ATG team with one of the finest batting units ever assembled. He was a great bowler, sure, but he wasn't some god living in some imaginary tier above the mere mortal Hadlee.

It's not the so much better, it's that he's better, at least from mine and the perspectives of quite a few others. I'm not factoring in batting for my opening bowler, and certainly not when allied to the gentleman who will be batting at no. 11.

Imaginary tier? Like any of them aren't?

He was the primary reason as to why Australia is a candidate for the greatest team of all time. When he's missing, the team just isn't that. Period.

From a bowling perspective he compliments Marshall more, much more actually. He did have a knack for removing top order batsmen and the best from the opposition and along with Marshall, Ambrose and by some metrics Davidson, the best ever new ball bowlers at the top of the innings.

He also has experiences in flatter conditions and no one utilized bounce or paired it with metronomic accuracy like he did.

If he's very arguably the 2nd greatest bowler ever, where's the argument.

No one during the '80's even picked Hadlee over Lillee and he couldn't bat either. Martin Crowe played in the same team as Hadlee and he selected Lillee, Marshall and Wasim ahead of him in his first team.

Your primary skills is to bowl. And again, this is a team with the greatest batters of all time, surely you can focus on the bowling.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn

Ahh, my original selection.

The best from 3 separate eras to boot...

 

[smash84]

It's not the so much better, it's that he's better, at least from mine and the perspectives of quite a few others. I'm not factoring in batting for my opening bowler, and certainly not when allied to the gentleman who will be batting at no. 11.

Imaginary tier? Like any of them aren't?

He was the primary reason as to why Australia is a candidate for the greatest team of all time. When he's missing, the team just isn't that. Period.

From a bowling perspective he compliments Marshall more, much more actually. He did have a knack for removing top order batsmen and the best from the opposition and along with Marshall, Ambrose and by some metrics Davidson, the best ever new ball bowlers at the top of the innings.

He also has experiences in flatter conditions and no one utilized bounce or paired it with metronomic accuracy like he did.

If he's very arguably the 2nd greatest bowler ever, where's the argument.

No one during the '80's even picked Hadlee over Lillee and he couldn't bat either. Martin Crowe played in the same team as Hadlee and he selected Lillee, Marshall and Wasim ahead of him in his first team.

Your primary skills is to bowl. And again, this is a team with the greatest batters of all time, surely you can focus on the bowling.

It's hard to say that he was the primary reason Aus became the number 1 team. There are a number of series where he played but Aus couldn't win. 1999 in WI. 1994 in Pakistan (although he was very new back then). He came back from 3rd test but couldn't stop England from winning the 05 ashes either. So it's not like if McGrath played he would make sure Aus would win.

Are you suggesting Hadlee wasn't adept at removing the top-order batsmen of the opposition?

"If he's very arguably the 2nd greatest bowler ever, where's the argument." WTF does this mean?

So what does Martin Crowe's selection have to do with anything? He selected Wasim ahead of McGrath as well, so does that make Wasim better than McGrath?

 

[Gob]

Marshall
McGrath
Imran

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It's hard to say that he was the primary reason Aus became the number 1 team. There are a number of series where he played but Aus couldn't win. 1999 in WI. 1994 in Pakistan (although he was very new back then). He came back from 3rd test but couldn't stop England from winning the 05 ashes either. So it's not like if McGrath played he would make sure Aus would win.

McGrath also got completely owned by NZ in 2001/02 taking 5 wickets @ 65.4 (s/r 140).
He was left just bowling really wide of off stump (clear white ball wides) to prevent defeat in the 1st test. Due to poor umpiring in the 3rd test Australia escaped with a 0-0 draw.

 

[Prince EWS]

Marshall Hadlee Imran. McGrath missing out seems just wrong but I really like this combo.

If you're picking Warne ahead of Murali then he's at eleven which is the ultimate bat deep side, seemingly by accident.

 

[Cipher]

McGrath also got completely owned by NZ in 2001/02 taking 5 wickets @ 65.4 (s/r 140).
He was left just bowling really wide of off stump (clear white ball wides) to prevent defeat in the 1st test. Due to poor umpiring in the 3rd test Australia escaped with a 0-0 draw.

That series was a great lesson for McGrath, the kiwis just kept leaving him outside off. He began to target the stumps with more regularity, which in turn made it harder for batsmen to leave. Took 27 wickets from 5 matches against NZ after that series!