Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[smash84]

It's literally your only argument.

So not only do you falsify your own AT XIs to get back at posters you deliberately misrepresent others' arguments too. Gotcha.

 

[smash84]

Marshall McGrath Hadlee Steyn and Bumrah away from home are all significantly better. Ambrose is better too but the gap is less

Ambrose I won't consider to be better than Imran let alone having a big gap ahead of him. Although others might have him ahead.

Bumrah can be the greatest Asian Bowler ever and possibly best ever fast bowler but he doesn't have enough body of work for that yet.

I haven't looked at Hadlee and Steyns away records in detail in a long time so will probably get back to you about that later.

 

[Thala_0710]

Bumrah can be the greatest Asian Bowler ever and possibly best ever fast bowler but he doesn't have enough body of work for that yet

Bumrah was only for the away from home part where he's done enough already imo (158 wkts @20)

 

[smash84]

Bumrah was only for the away from home part where he's done enough already imo (158 wkts @20)

He just hasn't played enough for me to be there yet tbh.

As much as I rate him, longevity matters.

Body breaks down a lot more over longer periods of time generally speaking. So I will wait for my verdict regarding him.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I'm trying to crate the strongest one, with the strongest attack. I'm not sure what you're trying to do tbh.

And yes I do have 5 players combined from the two greatest teams ever, including the 3 from Australia. Three players who were key to a dynasty, arguably a top 2 bowler of all time, arguably the greatest spinner ever and one of the two greatest wicketkeeper batsmen of all time is different from choosing by peer rating the 3rd, and 5th best bowlers from a single era.
And basically choosing your bowling attack by how much they averaged with the bat.

You do see the difference right?

 

[kyear2]

Hmm I'd put that Pakistan lineup on par with any of the better 80s lineups. At worst slightly below.

He keeps talking about the early 80's Wait team, but the only one that he did well against in the Caribbean was in '88 when it was an objectively regular and not close to all time lineup.

 

[kyear2]

Border is definitely a cut above anything that SL had at the time.

I had totally forgotten about Deano (in my mind he's always an ODI pioneer) but was Kepler Wessels really much good?

My bigger point was that people calling SL minnows at the time tend to have 0 idea of why they were minnows. They just had completely shite bowling. People like Rumesh Ratnanayake weren't exactly setting the world alight. They didn't get a world class bowler until Murali came along. Vaas was a decent support act but once they had the bowlers to pick up 20 wickets they became a force to reckon with.

The numbers for the era were repeatedly listed above and SL were levels below the other teams of the era.

There's no argument to be made though.

 

[subshakerz]

Some people can't get their head around that other people have differing criteria for selections.

Actually it's not just you who have the same views, many others pick the same combo but unlike you are not sanctimonious about it and constantly whine when others pick differently.

 

[subshakerz]

And the WI lineup in '88, the one which they base his record on was a distinctly weaker one than even in '84.

It's wasn't an AT it even great lineup at that point.

Sorry but Greenidge, Haynes, Viv and Richardson is a top lineup no matter how you spin it

 

[subshakerz]

Yes the middle order was McCosker, Chappell & Walters. Those 3 I said earlier were test standard or better.
But lets compare them to the '84 side in Australia's batsman: WI vs Australia MCG
Wessels>McCosker
Hughes<Chappell
Border>Walters
Not certainly better than '84.

Yes because I've been saying the whole time that he didn't play against Chappell, that's the only one major difference between the sides they faced. Imran was not bowling to an entire top 6 of 40+ average batsmen compared to Marshall. When you say Imran faced stronger Australian lineups it's not the entire batting lineup, it's just Chappell.

Sorry but there is a huge gulf between Chappell and Hughes that makes this comparison moot. And yeah Chappell makes a massive difference.

I don't think bowling against weaker lineups should mean that getting out their best batsman is any less of an accomplishment. It's like getting out Len Hutton or Brian Lara for their respective teams.

I find it hard to justify that Khan was bowling to stronger lineups considerably more than Marshall during a decade that had fairly evenly matched sides (AUS, ENG, NZ, IND, PAK), 1 dominant (WI) & 1 minnow (SRI) - which Marshall didn't play but Imran did.

As I already pointed out earlier Gavaskar was bowled out for less more often by Marshall. If you count the times he was dismissed for 20 runs or less, Imran got him out cheaply 5 times. Marshall got him out cheaply 7 times. This was despite playing him less.
No Vengasarkar was dismissed 10 times by both Imran (18 games) & Marshall (16 games) - better ratio.

Gundappa Viswanath? Marshall didn't get him out at all actually. I think it's too critical to judge it off 3 innings in 1978/79 where Marshall was given his debut while still raw due to the main quicks playing WSC. Same way I don't think Imran should be judged for 1971 or 1974 performances, he was still raw. But where are you getting your numbers from? It doesn't seem to be statsguru test numbers.
Again look at the matches played, Marshall played 9 games against Amaranth to Imran's 14. That's another better ratio + more 20 runs or lower dismissals.

If your criteria is to just ignore whenever Imran get Gavaskar out for 20 or more, that is awfully convenient since Imran doesn't have WI bowling support and Gavaskar stands a better chance of scoring more until Imran gets him out. Same applies to Amaranth. And it's not like Gavaskar getting out for 35 is a success somehow, and Marshall gets to bowl at him in a 5 test series on helpful WI pitches too. Basic fact is Imran on raw dismissals is comparable with Marshall against him.

Vengsarkar again hardly a big difference.

Vishwanath I mean if you want to just ignore the debut series fine but then admit that Imran faced stronger Indian lineups than Marshall did with Vishwanath in them.

Marshall got Border out 11 times (19 Matches) to Khan's 4 times (13 Matches where he bowled) yes.
19 matches to 13 matches is not "nearly twice as many tests", that would be closer to 26 matches. So it's not closer, he's better in this matchup too.

Yes Imran did perform better against Gower I will grant you that.

Imran wasn't playing as a bowler in two of those games against Border and didn't bowl a single delivery in 84/85.

With regards to Miandad, I'll add some context. 2 of those tests in 1990 Marshall was now 1st change rather than opening the bowling. Considering the quick fall of wickets & how few balls Miandad faced it's quite likely he didn't even face Marshall in those games.
So its really more 3 times in 9 tests. Still not a great ratio but also bear in mind that Miandad was a beneficiary of Pakistani umpiring, he even boasted to Steve Waugh "Don't bother appealing. This is my land, my rules". Pretty much all of the tests Miandad played against Marshall was at home bar two (When away Marshall got him out twice). He was never given out LBW against the WI. All that said, Marshall could have done better against him. Imran got Viv out 4 times in one series where he was out of form & only once after that. He averaged 58.35 against Pakistan after that '77 series. How Imran would have faired against Miandad in the test arena we do not know, that's why I think comparing batsmen they both played and dismissed is better to assess the bowlers skill.

Sorry but the umpire excuse doesn't work with Miandad since Imran had neutral umpires in home series in 86 and 90 when Marshall played against Miandad.

And no Viv wasn't out of form in 76 he just had an ATG series in England and the fact that Imran dismissed him four times at home in his peak goes to his credit.

So aside from Gower & Imran getting Viv out 2 extra times (which isn't a direct comparison) Marshall still had slightly or noticeably better results against Gavaskar, Vengasarkar, Amaranth & Border. But enough about player comparisons. How about a simple question.

No the only clear advantage he has is on Border. The rest are too slight to make any judgment especially since he has better support and better bowling conditions.

For.some reason it never occured to you that unlike let's say Imran and Hadlee, against WI bats don't have the option of playing Marshall out and attacking the other bowlers since they are all world class threats. Hence they are going to take more chances against him and will get out more.

Marshall is considered to be the greatest fast bowler of all time by many fans, players & critics alike.
Does that not mean he would be the best option to get a batsman out?

Yes I already told you I consider Marshall no.1, though Imran had a better peak. But this 'getting out the best bats' isnt a good argument because as we have seen it is close.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm trying to crate the strongest one, with the strongest attack. I'm not sure what you're trying to do tbh.

And yes I do have 5 players combined from the two greatest teams ever, including the 3 from Australia. Three players who were key to a dynasty, arguably a top 2 bowler of all time, arguably the greatest spinner ever and one of the two greatest wicketkeeper batsmen of all time is different from choosing by peer rating the 3rd, and 5th best bowlers from a single era.
And basically choosing your bowling attack by how much they averaged with the bat.

You do see the difference right?

And also a pacer, Wasim, who doesn't even make your top ten bowler list. Hence destroying your ranking argument.

Distinctly ahead means that there are better bowlers than Imran and as a bowler alone he isn't being picked as a bowler alone.

I can very easily argue that if you aren't getting picked as a bowler alone, then you shouldn't be at all.

So Imran can't be picked as a bowler alone, but Wasim whom you rate as an inferior bowler and not even in the top 10 ever can make it as a bowler alone?

 

[kyear2]

You are quite correct. I think it was Johan who posted it but average wise I believe Pakistan was tops in the 80s followed by WI, India etc. There was no huge gap in batting amongst the teams. WI had great batting, imo up until about 84 when Clive retired. Thereafter it was a declining Viv, Greenidge and a very good Richardson and ok Haynes. The narrative that there was any huge gulf amongst the batting lineups imo is wrong.

Exactly.

Viv was past his best, and Greenidge was well into his decline. Haynes was ok and Richie was as you said very good.

It's wasn't the juggernaught it's being portrayed to be.

 

[kyear2]

I'd make the swap on each of these tbh and am confident it'd probably have won these teams more games on average. Arguably with the exception of Bumrah (not because Bumrah is better or anything, but just because India had stupidly good batting depth already with Ashwin and Jadeja).

And I'm equally confident that none of those teams would have.

Imran wasn't winning more games, those games were won by taking wickets in most conditions and there's no doubt that not only was Pigeon a better bowler, but that they aren't in the same tier.

 

[kyear2]

Oh and also regardless, for the hundredth time



This is not true for many of us.

So you think that he's a top 4 fast bowler of all time?

In any event he's still behind the 3 aforementioned, and for a vast majority behind Steyn.

There's still only 3 selected.

 

[kyear2]

I won't address your points about Imran at all because you've admitted that you falsify his actual position in your ATXIs just to get back at certain posters.

Secondly, I am not sure why I chose McGrath in the first place because I have been advocating bat deep for a long time. I may have not given the matter much thought but my ATXI will have Hadlee ahead of McGrath.

The premise of the the thread was quite clear from the beginning, and it was based on what's your ideal bowling lineup and you quite clearly voted McGrath and pretty sure you posted on it as well, you're just disingenuously trying to prove a point that you didn't even advocate for.

I will forever argue that it's incredibly silly to be picking your no. 11 batsman based on batting when he's going to be opening your bowling. Petty sure you agreed earlier in the thread.

And your enjoy arguing because there's nothing to argue. Nothing I posted was inaccurate.

 

[subshakerz]

Exactly.

Viv was past his best, and Greenidge was well into his decline. Haynes was ok and Richie was as you said very good.

It's wasn't the juggernaught it's being portrayed to be.

Conveniently ignoring Viv had a great series. Nobody used the word juggernaut but it was a strong lineup.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think so tbh. Barring Lillee for Imran, I wouldn't make the change for any of the other teams.
You don't change the best bowler ever in Marshall, who consistently wins you games, with any other bowler. Same for Bumrah who consistently wins us matches away, and would have had won us even more if we had a half decent batting line up in the last 5 years (no Imran's batting wouldn't change it, you'd need a Tendulkar level bat to do it). And same is the case for Australia, why do you need a bowlers batting so much when you've already got Gilly at 7. Mcgrath's bowling away from home (and at home) and especially getting top order wkts, is just too valuable to them that they wouldn't swap him for Imran.

I agree

It's like saying my batting is horrible, but instead of addressing the batting, you're going to swap out your no. 8? That doesn't fix anything.

Your going to replace McGrath, the key to the dynasty? Not a chance.

Anyways, excellent post.

 

[subshakerz]

Nothing I posted was inaccurate.

Except your ATG XI.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree

It's like saying my batting is horrible, but instead of addressing the batting, you're going to swap out your no. 8? That doesn't fix anything.

Your going to replace McGrath, the key to the dynasty? Not a chance.

Anyways, excellent post.

Virtually every post you do now is a strawman.

 

[subshakerz]

So you think that he's a top 4 fast bowler of all time?

Neither is Wasim