Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Cipher]

Also just to add Marshall was competing with Holding, Garner, Roberts, Walsh etc. for wickets whereas Khan was competing with bowlers of a lesser quality/strike rate to get the prize wickets so if anything Imran should be having a higher amount of top batsman dismissals rather than Marshall.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Nz maybe but sure as hell not Australia. In the 80s Australia at least had players like Border, Wessels and Dean Jones.

Martin Crowe, John Wright, John R Reid, Jeremy Coney, and later Andrew Jones.

Greatbatch was also world class after debut (his knocks in Perth in 1989 were elite), before REALLY struggling in the 90s.

Australia were better than us before G Chappell retired, then we were better than them at batting for the rest of the decade (although it was close at the end when they scored a million runs in the 89 Ashes but we beat them in a test in 1990). From 1991 on Australia had MUCH better batting.

 

[subshakerz]

Can I ask two things, how did Imran do vs the tougher attacks he faced home and away. Also, what was Imran's peak period as a bowler in your opinion?

Toughest was WI and Imran did amazing home and away.

Bowling peak was from 80 to 88, averaged 17 with great series in Ind, Eng, Aus and WI.

 

[kyear2]

If we are getting rid of players from the era, let's start with the two rated the highest? They are both excellent, and offer ideal skills.

I rate Hadlee as the GOAT quick. Leaving him out would still be fine by me if he just offered bowling, but he doesn't. Downgrading him to the point where him as a package doesn't get him in would require looking at his era very unfavourably. Which we would need to do for Marshall as well.

We pick bats from different eras because we reckon the best ones come from different eras. If there were a couple of 70 averaging bats from a respectable bowling era, I'd be picking them. And that's the situation for Imran and Hadlee.

Where are they rated the highest? Especially as bowlers.

No one says to look at the era unfavorably. What I'm saying, and you're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying or trying not to understand is, why choose all of any discipline from the same era.

It's not devaluating the era, it's not excluding it, it's not saying there's anything wrong with it.

Who's downgrading Hadlee? Let me answer that for you, no one.

You rate him as the GOAT quick, that's fair, far from the general consensus. But fair and your privilege.

But you reference a package, and I don't think that's the primary thing to consider when choosing a bowling attack. I and the overwhelming professional consensus looks for the best or mist balanced attack. The fact that McGrath has easily defeated Imran and is on par with Hadlee here, speaks to that being the primary consideration here as well.

The reason we don't choose batsmen all from one era is because a team representing over a 100 years of cricket should have a decent representation and not all from a single decade of the sport. Not you entire middle order and not your entire attack.

I prefer an attack of guys who dominated and were the best of their respective eras, and who bring diverse and complementary skills to an attack.

Marshall and McGrath are non negotiables for me from that regard, the third could be any of Akram, Steyn, Hadlee or Imran, likely in that order.

You're just creating straw man arguments at this point.

 

[subshakerz]

Slifer's already answered this but if we compare them during the 80's & remove WI & Sri Lanka from Imran's record (which is fair because Marshall didn't play against them), Marshall has a better average in the same period.
It's arguable that Imran did bowl to a slightly better Australian batting lineup earlier on but for a bit of context he only bowled in 3 games in Australia during the 80's. Both of them bowled to Border, Hughes, Wood & Dyson (4 out of 6 batsmen in the early to mid 80's). Greg Chappell was of course the main difference for Khan. Marshall played India only 3 games less & performed much better against them.

But when I claimed Marshall was better at getting out top order batsman it wasn't about his averages, it was about specific batsman he was dismissing. He got out Gavaskar more cheaply, Border more often, Vengsarkar the same amount from 2 matches less. He got Kim Hughes out 5 times from 8 matches compared to Khan's 3 from 12 matches. He also got Martin Crowe out whereas Khan could not in any format.

I'm sure there are batsman that Khan bowled better to than Marshall but when I see that he got better results against recognised batsman out of respective teams (Gavaskar, Border, Hughes etc.) & also got good batsman such as Gooch & Boon out quite often that's why I think he was better at getting the best out a little bit more.

Well first off, it's simply odd to discount WI since they are an ATG side and Imrans success against them matters a lot. The whole point of the argument is that Imran faced stronger lineups more not that this is Marshalls fault.

Imran played a very strong Aus team in 76/77.

Marshall played a sub par Indian batting team in 89 when Gavsaskar retired.

You can give Marshall credit for getting those bats out more but generally he didnt to get too face several high quality bats like Chappell, Viv, Greenisge, Lloyd, etc that Imran had to.

 

[Cipher]

They weren't Bangladesh levels minnows but they were a step down from the other 6 teams at the time.

Correct.



Sri Lanka vs Pakistan Individual Batsmen by comparison

 

[subshakerz]

The fact that McGrath has easily defeated Imran and is on par with Hadlee here, speaks to that being the primary consideration here as well.

Imran defeats Wasim here but you don't seem to care about that peer opinion, do you? Stop being a hypocrite.

 

[Cipher]

Well first off, it's simply odd to discount WI since they are an ATG side and Imrans success against them matters a lot. The whole point of the argument is that Imran faced stronger lineups more not that this is Marshalls fault.

Imran played a very strong Aus team in 76/77.

Marshall played a sub par Indian batting team in 89 when Gavsaskar retired.

You can give Marshall credit for getting those bats out more but generally he didnt to get too face several high quality bats like Chappell, Viv, Greenisge, Lloyd, etc that Imran had to.

That was to compare them both against similar opposition. You can't compare how Marshall would have gone against the west indies. Not disregarding Imran performed well against the best side but when compared to similar calibre batsman they both played Marshall was statistically better.

Chappell, Walters & McCosker sure. Turner, Davis & Cosier? No. That was only 3 tests as well.
Marshall played a better Australian side in 1991 that was for 5 tests & he performed better.

He played 3 games against them in 89. Most of his games against india were in 1983 where he dismissed Gavaskar 6 times in 11 matches. He bowled very well against them that year too.

This is like saying that Viv isn't as good a bat as Miandad because he didn't get to face his own bowlers.
It's just wrong, there are other high quality players in the world that didn't play for West Indies.
Border, Gavaskar, Vengsakar (two players you called strong), Miandad, Gower, Dean Jones, Crowe.
Plenty of players who averaged ~45 or more by the end of their careers in a tough era. And Marshall got them all out.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

That was to compare them both against similar opposition. You can't compare how Marshall would have gone against the west indies. Not disregarding Imran performed well against the best side but when compared to similar calibre batsman they both played Marshall was statistically better.

Chappell, Walters & McCosker sure. Turner, Davis & Cosier? No. That was only 3 tests as well.
Marshall played a better Australian side in 1991 that was for 5 tests & he performed better.

He played 3 games against them in 89. Most of his games against india were in 1983 where he dismissed Gavaskar 6 times in 11 matches. He bowled very well against them that year too.

This is like saying that Viv isn't as good a bat as Miandad because he didn't get to face his own bowlers.
It's just wrong, there are other high quality players in the world that didn't play for West Indies.
Border, Gavaskar, Vengsakar (two players you called strong), Miandad, Gower, Dean Jones, Crowe.
Plenty of players who averaged ~45 or more by the end of their careers in a tough era. And Marshall got them all out.

 

[kyear2]

Just rejoined this thread but I'm going to assume you're including batting. Because bowling wise, Marshall is slightly ahead of Hadlee (or at worse equal) but distinctly better than Imran.

It greatly depends on the weighting that one allocates for such ratings.

But when batting supercedes the actual primary selection criteria of actually bowling, it's gone too far.

Hence I think this poll result is fair

 

[smash84]

But when batting supercedes the actual primary selection criteria of actually bowling, it's gone too far.

Why do you keep repeating strawman arguments like this?

 

[Bolo.]

Where are they rated the highest? Especially as bowlers.

No one says to look at the era unfavorably. What I'm saying, and you're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying or trying not to understand is, why choose all of any discipline from the same era.

It's not devaluating the era, it's not excluding it, it's not saying there's anything wrong with it.

Who's downgrading Hadlee? Let me answer that for you, no one.

You rate him as the GOAT quick, that's fair, far from the general consensus. But fair and your privilege.

But you reference a package, and I don't think that's the primary thing to consider when choosing a bowling attack. I and the overwhelming professional consensus looks for the best or mist balanced attack. The fact that McGrath has easily defeated Imran and is on par with Hadlee here, speaks to that being the primary consideration here as well.

The reason we don't choose batsmen all from one era is because a team representing over a 100 years of cricket should have a decent representation and not all from a single decade of the sport. Not you entire middle order and not your entire attack.

I prefer an attack of guys who dominated and were the best of their respective eras, and who bring diverse and complementary skills to an attack.

Marshall and McGrath are non negotiables for me from that regard, the third could be any of Akram, Steyn, Hadlee or Imran, likely in that order.

You're just creating straw man arguments at this point.

Are you trying to create the most representative team, or the strongest one? Until very recently you had 3 teammates in your side in Warne, McGrath and Gilly. This is far less representative
than 3 guys from 1 era but different teams. So we are talking quality here?

I have some slight doubts about quality. But in terms of picking the best players, and a balanced attack, you have to give the era a huge downgrade to drop any of them. They are a distance ahead of players of comparable styles.

Would you say you wanted the best of different eras if asked to pick a team in 1990? It's a fine idea, but not if better players played at the same time. And you will see that sometimes. See Warne and Murali.

 

[subshakerz]

That was to compare them both against similar opposition. You can't compare how Marshall would have gone against the west indies. Not disregarding Imran performed well against the best side but when compared to similar calibre batsman they both played Marshall was statistically better.

Chappell, Walters & McCosker sure. Turner, Davis & Cosier? No. That was only 3 tests as well.
Marshall played a better Australian side in 1991 that was for 5 tests & he performed better.

He played 3 games against them in 89. Most of his games against india were in 1983 where he dismissed Gavaskar 6 times in 11 matches. He bowled very well against them that year too.

This is like saying that Viv isn't as good a bat as Miandad because he didn't get to face his own bowlers.
It's just wrong, there are other high quality players in the world that didn't play for West Indies.
Border, Gavaskar, Vengsakar (two players you called strong), Miandad, Gower, Dean Jones, Crowe.
Plenty of players who averaged ~45 or more by the end of their careers in a tough era. And Marshall got them all out.

I think you are mistaken. At no point did I say
Marshall was inferior to Imran.

But using the criteria of best bats dismissed to me is misleading since objectively speaking Imran faced superior batting sides more frequently. Which I don't think you are disputing since Imran faced WI and stronger Aus and Indian sides more frequently.

Marshall faced strong Indian sides in two series and 9 tests (78 and 83), strong Aussie sides in 1 series of 5 tests (1991).

Imran faced strong Indian sides of three series and 15 tests (79, 82 and 87) and strong Aus sides in three series (76, 81 and 90) and 9 tests. And played a strong WI side in 18 tests.

Marshall is definitely better but I wouldn't use this as a way to gain an advantage over Imran who played literally half his games against strong better sides.

If I argue Viv is better against top bowlers, I would have to be careful who I use that argument against. I wouldn't do it against Greg Chappell who likely faced better bowling more on average.

 

[Coronis]

I corrected on India before you posted a reply but Imran still played that lineup more. And more strong Aussie sides and of course WI.

Pakistan in the mid 80s onwards wasn't a particularly strong batting lineup sorry.

So I don't see any lie in saying Imran generally faced more strong lineups more regularly in his career, which doesn't change by facing SL too which I don't deny. And this all was in response to that post earlier giving the impression that Imran wasn't as successful against top bats.

Stronger than most, including the West Indies.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=08+Aug+1991;spanmin1=01+Jan+1985;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[subshakerz]

Stronger than most, including the West Indies.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=08+Aug+1991;spanmin1=01+Jan+1985;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

I think the home differential screw things, and many of the stronger 70s bats retired by mid 80s.

For example, Shoaib Mohammed averages 44 but it's about as ordinary a bat you can think of.

 

[Coronis]

I think the home differential screw things, and many of the stronger 70s bats retired by mid 80s.

For example, Shoaib Mohammed averages 44 but it's about as ordinary a bat you can think of.

Actually they were one of the best batting units away, by far clear of 4th place. Try again.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually they were one of the best batting units away, by far clear of 4th place. Try again.

Lets be clearer. The Pakistani batting lineup Marshall played in 1980 was reasonably strong.

Not particularly the ones he faced in 86, 88 and 90. Again I am comparing them with WI, India with Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Vishwanath and Amaranth and Aus with Chappell, Border, Hughes etc.

 

[Coronis]

Lets be clearer. The Pakistani batting lineup Marshall played in 1980 was reasonably strong.

Not particularly the ones he faced in 86, 88 and 90. Again I am comparing them with WI, India with Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Vishwanath and Amaranth and Aus with Chappell, Border, Hughes etc.

Well obviously the Australian and Indian were better. But the Pakistan lineups were right on par with the Windies ones.

 

[subshakerz]

But the Pakistan lineups were right on par with the Windies ones.

Huh? No.

 

[Coronis]

Huh? No.

Huh

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;opposition=4;opposition=7;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1990;spanmin1=01+Jan+1985;spanval1=span;team=4;team=7;template=results;type=batting