• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Your ATG team pace bowling trio

Who do you select in your all-time side?


  • Total voters
    72

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In part yes but not the sole reason why. I am not sidestepping it, I am merely adding context to the entire dismissal record of Imran vs Viv. Which is that he predominantly got him out in one series where he was below his best. Viv had the better running of this battle outside this series. I am not sidestepping it, this was because you were trying to compare it with Marshall's record against Miandad. So you invited analysis to it, there's no reason to get salty & say I'm "crying about form" because I'm analysing the performances, if you don't like discussing or agreeing with its impact you don't have to.
No proof provided he entered the series below his best so using that term is disingenuous.

And if we are arbitrarily removing the best series against an opponents, let's just remove Viv in Pakistan in 80 and suddenly he looks ordinary against Imran, or Marshall against Gavsaskar in 83 and suddenly he is not so hot against him.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So I guess that would mean it was easier to get out Viv than Miandad? Which means the comparison between the two wasn't really worthwhile?
No but Viv did have a tendency to often get bored or careless and lose his wicket to lesser bowlers. He didn't maximise like Smith against medium to low opposition at the same rate. That doesn't mean he did it every innings but it was common enough to be a slight blemish.
 

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
It's really strange justifications from you at this point.

Imran gets Gavsaskar out a lot and you say well Gavsaskar was still scoring a bit before getting out.

Imran gets Viv out cheaply in a series and you say well Viv must have been in bad form.
It's not strange you're just focusing on the wrong parts of my arguments. It's not the scores it's the starts. Getting them out early creates more pressure for the batting side than getting them out later. Gavaskar found it harder to survive the first spell of bowling with Marshall than he did with Imran. That's been the argument about Imran & Marshall vs Gavaskar. Or basically in general that Marshall was slightly better at getting out good batsman, as evidenced by earlier dismissals & would be a better new ball bowler=more important bowler for your AT side.

Because those differences between Viv & Gavaskar's dismissals are time relevant in which form can change. Imran getting Viv out 4 times out of 5 total times occurred over one month of test cricket. Imran getting Gavaskar out occured over a much longer period of time which is a better indicator of a record against somebody. Context does matter.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Because those differences between Viv & Gavaskar's dismissals are time relevant in which form can change. Imran getting Viv out 4 times out of 5 total times occurred over one month of test cricket. Imran getting Gavaskar out occured over a much longer period of time which is a better indicator of a record against somebody. Context does matter.
It just sounds like you are keeping finding ways to not give Imran credit for a great series showing against Viv in 76/77. If you just give credit to that we can move on.
 

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
But Imran gets out Gavsaskar at the same or higher rate than Marshall, and you admit that Marshalls support bowlers will account for Gavsaskar getting lower scores, that means setting cheap dismissals as criteria helps Marshall.
You ignored my point about how many more balls Imran bowled at Gavaskar. But you're aware of the context behind that rate now. If you don't want to admit he was better at getting him out quickly that's fine.
Please stop focusing on the runs scored side of it & focus on the time side of it which is my point. The 20 runs or less score was just a marker to indicate whether they'd survived the first spell of bowling. Tell me who got Gavaskar out early more often?

Imran a much better old ball bowler and overall bowler
Old ball bowler with his reverse swing sure, overall I don't think so.

Marshalls exceptional SR also is supported by his support bowlers meaning less load and pressure on him
Sure a reasonable point. Marshall is the better new ball bowler though, if he got as many matches as Imran did with the new ball, his dismissals of Gavaskar would be higher than Imran's.

Great thanks for admitting Imran faced stronger lineups.
Oh please. If you're going to disregard what I'm saying & take my replies out of context don't even reply.

Sorry but if you aren't going to apply your criteria consistently to differentiate your ATG bowlers then don't use it to argue Marshall is better than Imran due to best bats.
What? That's a strawman. I never said Marshall was only better than Imran because of only best bats dismissals. I said that was one reason he was better than him at bowling. I believe I originally said you were losing bowling potency picking Marshall over Imran. Not just skill against best bats. He's just better overall skill wise. You're starting to argue dishonestly now, it might be better just to leave this alone.
 

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Like Imran did in Australia, England, NZ, India and WI...... Think.

Imran is literally the most allroundest of all all-rounders after Sobers.
Imo the most allroundest of allrounders would be someone who’s equal in skill level in batting and bowling. Which those two certainly don’t fit.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You ignored my point about how many more balls Imran bowled at Gavaskar. But you're aware of the context behind that rate now. If you don't want to admit he was better at getting him out quickly that's fine.
Please stop focusing on the runs scored side of it & focus on the time side of it which is my point. The 20 runs or less score was just a marker to indicate whether they'd survived the first spell of bowling. Tell me who got Gavaskar out early more often?
Pretty sure Steyn would take less deliveries to get someone out than McGrath. I don't think it makes him better.

And I only bring up the 20 runs side of it because it's your criteria.

Old ball bowler with his reverse swing sure, overall I don't think so.
I'm not saying Imran was better just that Marshall being better with the new ball doesn't automatically make him better.

Sure a reasonable point. Marshall is the better new ball bowler though, if he got as many matches as Imran did with the new ball, his dismissals of Gavaskar would be higher than Imran's.
They are different bowlers with different MOs so there are going to be some top bats that each are better against. That is my point.

Oh please. If you're going to disregard what I'm saying & take my replies out of context don't even reply.
Just wanted that admission that Marshall had it a bit easier which you weren't willing to give until now.

What? That's a strawman. I never said Marshall was only better than Imran because of only best bats dismissals. I said that was one reason he was better than him at bowling. I believe I originally said you were losing bowling potency picking Marshall over Imran. Not just skill against best bats. He's just better overall skill wise. You're starting to argue dishonestly now, it might be better just to leave this alone.
Huh? You used this as a key criteria for Marshalls superiority over Imran. I never said it's the only one but in the context of our conversation it was seen as important. So it's perfectly valid for me to ask why it doesn't apply to the same extent with McGrath.
 

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
No proof provided he entered the series below his best so using that term is disingenuous.
Form can evaporate at any time, there is no guarantee it will continue based on performing well in a previous series 6 months ago. At some point he was no longer in good form if he averaged low in that series & got out to lower calibre bowlers. So for the sake of proof I actually have some. After his last test in 1976 during his great year he then played for Queensland in the Sheffield shield. He scored 181 runs from 6 innings @30.16 which is well below his standards. State Cricket Stats. You can't say its disingenuous to doubt he was in the form of his life coming into that series.

And if we are arbitrarily removing the best series against an opponents, let's just remove Viv in Pakistan in 80 and suddenly he looks ordinary against Imran, or Marshall against Gavsaskar in 83 and suddenly he is not so hot against him.
Well no the difference here is that Imran was good against Viv in one series. Viv was good against Imran in 2 given that he only got out to him once after '77. Removing 1983 against Marshall for Gavaskar would be silly because then you'd only be talking about 3 games at the beginning of his career rather than 14.

But if it will make you move on yes I'm happy to give credit that Imran had one good series against Viv where he was below his best.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But if it will make you move on yes I'm happy to give credit that Imran had one good series against Viv where he was below his best.
This is a backhanded way of giving credit to Imran because you are effectively saying that Viv was somehow easier to get out in that series hence Imran did better.

You don't have footage or match reports to confirm he was in bad form. It's perfectly possible Viv had a quiet series which can happen to any bat without being in bad form. Just stop digging this hole.
Form can evaporate at any time, there is no guarantee it will continue based on performing well in a previous series 6 months ago. At some point he was no longer in good form if he averaged low in that series & got out to lower calibre bowlers. So for the sake of proof I actually have some. After his last test in 1976 during his great year he then played for Queensland in the Sheffield shield. He scored 181 runs from 6 innings @30.16 which is well below his standards. State Cricket Stats. You can't say its disingenuous to doubt he was in the form of his life coming into that series.
You say that form can discontinue and we can't trust it based on series form months ago and then immediately give a Sheffield Series performances months ago as 'proof' he was in bad form.

Not that bad form is any less reason to give credit to bowlers for getting bats out.
 

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Pretty sure Steyn would take less deliveries to get someone out than McGrath. I don't think it makes him better.
That's true but not quite what I'm trying to say. Imran may have bowled a good couple hundred more balls at Gavaskar over his career than Marshall. To only get him out 3 more times than Marshall suggests he did find it harder to get him out than Marshall did.

And I only bring up the 20 runs side of it because it's your criteria.
Yeah but you know that focusing on the number rather than what it is representing is being intentionally annoying.

They are different bowlers with different MOs so there are going to be some top bats that each are better against. That is my point.
Yes I agree with Border & Gower being examples of that. If you rate Marshall as the better bowler wouldn't that mean he is more trusted to get a wicket over Imran? Don't even name a specific batsman, would you not say that Marshall is more likely to be successful against them compared to Imran due to the fact he's the best bowler that you rate higher?

Just wanted that admission that Marshall had it a bit easier which you weren't willing to give until now.
Against the 70's/early 80's India & Australia sides due to the presence of one better batsman yes. Whether that meant he had it easier over his whole career when he didn't get to bowl against Sri Lanka, bowled against Australian sides in 88/89 & 91 that were of comparable strength to the ones Imran faced in his earlier career is another thing.

You used this as a key criteria for Marshalls superiority over Imran
I never said that it was the key reason I thought Marshall is better than Imran. I only said that in my opinion he was slightly better than Imran at it as a general comment, which started the debate. Like I said earlier "Overall record, skill & peer rep are considered first." Marshall has more skill & peer rep than anyone else imo. That's why I think he's better even before considering the record against best bats. That's more of a differentiator between someone like Akram who has a higher percentage of wickets against tailenders vs someone like Ambrose.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's true but not quite what I'm trying to say. Imran may have bowled a good couple hundred more balls at Gavaskar over his career than Marshall. To only get him out 3 more times than Marshall suggests he did find it harder to get him out than Marshall did.
Ok but worth mentioning that this includes series like 86/87 when Indians intentionally decided to produce featherbed wickets after getting destroyed by Imran the last two series, intended for no result that neutralised all bowlers involved. I think all said and done, caveats and all, not a big difference between them on Gavsaskar.

Yeah but you know that focusing on the number rather than what it is representing is being intentionally annoying.
Because I disagree with the criteria.

Yes I agree with Border & Gower being examples of that. If you rate Marshall as the better bowler wouldn't that mean he is more trusted to get a wicket over Imran? Don't even name a specific batsman, would you not say that Marshall is more likely to be successful against them compared to Imran due to the fact he's the best bowler that you rate higher?
Sure as a general statement Marshall is likely to be successful against ABC bat but when you go into specifics it's not clear.

Against the 70's/early 80's India & Australia sides due to the presence of one better batsman yes. Whether that meant he had it easier over his whole career when he didn't get to bowl against Sri Lanka, bowled against Australian sides in 88/89 & 91 that were of comparable strength to the ones Imran faced in his earlier career is another thing.
Ok and Imran faced those strong sides much more than Marshall with WI included.

I never said that it was the key reason I thought Marshall is better than Imran. I only said that in my opinion he was slightly better than Imran at it as a general comment, which started the debate. Like I said earlier "Overall record, skill & peer rep are considered first." Marshall has more skill & peer rep than anyone else imo. That's why I think he's better even before considering the record against best bats. That's more of a differentiator between someone like Akram who has a higher percentage of wickets against tailenders vs someone like Ambrose.
I don't see the need to bring the best bats argument. As you have seen, when we get into the weeds of it, it's quite convoluted outside of someone like Border where he has a clear advantage.
 
Last edited:

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
This is a backhanded way of giving credit to Imran because you are effectively saying that Viv was somehow easier to get out in that series hence Imran did better.

You don't have footage or match reports to confirm he was in bad form. It's perfectly possible Viv had a quiet series which can happen to any bat without being in bad form. Just stop digging this hole.

You say that form can discontinue and we can't trust it based on series form months ago and then immediately give a Sheffield Series performances months ago as 'proof' he was in bad form.

Not that bad form is any less reason to give credit to bowlers for getting bats out.
Haha yeah it was you got me.

Do you have the same evidence to prove the opposite? I've at least given more relevant reasons why that could be the case, you're pointing to records earlier than mine.

That's because you used the 1976 year as reasoning for why he was in good form. It's your argument not mine I'm just going along with it for more context. I have something closer to the relevant series that at the very least shows he wasn't in scintillating form. But you're welcome to throw that out if you agree with my point that old prior results don't reflect future form.

Bad form is 100% a reason to give bowlers less credit. It's the same line of thinking as saying someone was over the hill or inexperienced when they had a poor showing. You're not getting them out when they're at their best. It's still an achievement yes, but it is not as massive as when they're flying. Think of what it was like for sides to get Kohli out when he was in his purple patch compared to the end of his career, form matters.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bad form is 100% a reason to give bowlers less credit. It's the same line of thinking as saying someone was over the hill or inexperienced when they had a poor showing. You're not getting them out when they're at their best. It's still an achievement yes, but it is not as massive as when they're flying. Think of what it was like for sides to get Kohli out when he was in his purple patch compared to the end of his career, form matters.
I just disagree on the bad form argument since it's fundamentally different from being injured or inexperienced.

But in this case, you are saying that we can't tell for sure if he was in bad form beforehand, so you are arguing that he had bad form in the course of the series, therefore Imran can't be given full credit for dismissing him several times, despite him dismissing him being a reason for his supposed bad form.

You dont see how that is a circular argument?

Additionally, Viv scored well in the first test when Imran didn't dismiss him, and only struggled in the remaining tests as Imran started getting him out.
 
Last edited:

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Ok but worth mentioning that this includes series like 86/87 when Indians intentionally decided to produce featherbed wickets after getting destroyed by Imran the last two series, intended for no result that neutralised all bowlers involved. I think all said and done, caveats and all, not a big difference between them on Gavsaskar.
Fair enough but to add that was only 5 innings (where he bowled) out of 29 when Gavaskar played. To his credit in one of them he got him out for a golden duck & another for 63. I will acknowledge it as a factor but I don't think that its the decisive reason Imran took a lot more time/couldn't as easily get Gavaskar out over his career. After some reflection I don't think there's a big difference either in getting him out at some point in the match. It is just the speed (and possibly better new ball ability of Marshall compared to Imran) of which Marshall could dismiss him but you're not a fan of that criteria (even though I'd argue it is better to get someone out early rather than later but that's team/context dependent) so lets leave it there :thumbup:

Sure as a general statement Marshall is likely to be successful against ABC bat but when you go into specifics it's not clear.
But if he's more likely to be successful this should also translate to top batsmen yes? Unless you are renowned as a giant killer or tailender specialist which is reflected typically in the batting order dismissal percentages like McGrath or Wasim were, then you can differentiate. But if you're more of just a general great bowler like perhaps Marshall & Imran were then maybe that small general difference in skill should translate to getting top, average & poor batsmen out as well. I realise this is a sweeping statement though & as you believe its different for specifics, you don't need to argue our difference of opinion here.

Ok and Imran faced those strong sides much more than Marshall, WI included.
Okay I'll agree with you that he did play some better batting sides more often. Although not so much with Australia as I do think their late 80's/90's batting lineup is equal or better to the late 70/80's teams with Greg Chappell. It's more about playing India more often with 1 better bat in Viswanath (a decent but not elite bat which I still have my doubts that it's a big difference maker), early 80's WI (definitely fair as a difference) & a few games against 70's England. In comparison to Marshall being able to play 80's/90's England more often.

This is mitigated somewhat (although not entirely) by getting 10 games against the SRI minnows. I think you're also underselling Pakistan's batting ability in this period btw, I think Coronis showed you stats that they were comparable H2H to WI after Clive Lloyd retired.

I do think Marshall had to face a better NZ side for his 7 matches compared to Imran as well. But yes after looking into it Imran did have a higher proportion of games against strong sides, did he perform better against them than what Marshall did or would have? That's up for debate. Which I guess you've been trying to say all along, sorry.
 

Cipher

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
But in this case, you are saying that we can't tell for sure if he was in bad form beforehand, so you are arguing that he had bad form in the course of the series, therefore Imran can't be given full credit for dismissing him several times, despite him dismissing him being a reason for his supposed bad form.

You dont see how that is a circular argument?

Additionally, Viv scored well in the first test when Imran didn't dismiss him, and only struggled in the remaining tests as Imran started getting him out.
Form can come and go for various reasons. Imran still took plenty of wickets in the series which I will give him credit for that. I am not making a circular argument because I'm not just taking Imran's bowling into account . Viv was dismissed by other bowlers 5 times to Imran's 4. (6 times if you include the ODI during the series in which he only scored 20). The fact that Sarfraz Nawaz only ever dismissed him in just this series alone (twice), the same for Wasim Raja (once) & Saleem Altaf (once) & 1 out of 2 times for Mushtaq Mohammad to me suggests that he was getting out easier than he normally would be. 9 other batsmen outperformed him in this series. 9! That is not the showing of a usual premier bat. Even if you're getting dominated by one player surely you can find ways to attack the others (like Gavaskar did).

I'm not saying Imran getting him out makes the case for Viv being in bad form, it's more the other lower calibre bowlers getting him out & Viv being out performed by several other batsmen (WI & PAK) that is making me dubious about how well he was playing. Yes Imran should get credit for contributing to Viv's poor showing with the bat but I also think Viv was not up to his level of batting that he achieved in the previous year or after that. Given that these same bowlers did not trouble Viv to nearly the same extent in other series (including Imran) I do think there's an argument that their success here against Viv was an aberration rather than the norm.

I know this comes across as an outcome bias (rather than a circular argument) but why else could Imran only get Viv out regularly in this one series if not for form? Because this occurred before Imran even hit his peak as a bowler, so he should have been continuing to get him out regularly if everything else remained constant but he didn't for some reason.
 

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
If you aren't picking 11 bowlers, you are compromising on bowling quality. You aren't even picking 5.

You are perfectly fine with compromising the bowling quality. You just don't like this compromise.

If Ambrose had the batting career of Lara, you would pick him. See last paragraph.

Pick the 4 best bowlers (and a balanced attack) is a principle that often holds true in real world teams. They lack the resources. At a hypothetical level, you don't believe this principle would hold true, unless you want to argue you wouldn't pick Ambrose/Lara. Imran and Hadlee are real world examples of where this principle breaks down for a lot of people.
The poll is settled and the goal was never to turn this into an Imran thing, but this argument is hilarious.

The opening line is stupid. Teams are constructed as they are, and have been for quite some time now.

So there's no compromise even to start and that's the new patron saints of straw man arguments.

Ambrose doesn't have the batting career of Lara and there's an all rounder spot for such unicorns. And that's just it, there's on all rounder spot, and at most a consideration at 8, and even that isn't universal.

Yes, pick the best 4 bowlers and a balanced attack is a principal for normal teams, but is it for lack of resources or prioritizing bowling out the opposition to win matches.

We go through pains to say why Sachin is the perfect middle order batsman and ideal for the no. 4 or spot spot for such a team, and as we should, because that's his primary job, even though he could never match the utility or value of a Hammond or Kallis.

But his primary job is to score at 4 / 5 and he's the best suited and skilled to do so.

I just don't know, how the same though process is somehow ignored for the bowlers of the team. Essentially when bowlers have been the heart beat and central figures of every great and successful team. Bowlers are no less important than batting, and again, on a team where you have such strong batting, you have the luxury of selecting what ever is perceived to be the best attack.

A small but vocal segment of this community has decided that batting depth trumps all, and because they have been vocal it's been perceived that it's the predominant doctrine, but based on this and other polls, it's clearly not the case.

It's also not the case outside of CW either, where you will literally never find an attack based on batting prowess. You will literally never seen a bowling lineup of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne. No matter how well Hadlee batted, he wasn't seen as better than McGrath or Lillee by the vast majority, even during his own era, and he is seen well above where Imran is as well.

People who understand the sport, understand that the ultimate goal is 20 wickets and the getting them as fast and as cheaply and efficiently as possible is the objective.
 

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
No it isn't silly, the reason I bring it up is because Imran only got Viv out once in any other series. So 4 times in a 5 match series where Viv was well below his best given my evidence of what happened in that series rather than historically 6 months prior. After that it was 1 time in 9 matches, not a good return from that point. Considering this whole debate has been about if Imran was as good as Marshall in getting top batsman out I would say consistent success is pretty relevant. Why wasn't he able to get Viv out easily after that series if it wasn't because of bad form?


I've been saying the whole time there is not a big difference, they're both ATG's but there is enough there to say Marshall is slightly better.
When you ask Viv who was the best bowlers he faced, he names two. Marshall and Lillee, Marshall over Lillee because he didn't only primarily perform well in "his own back yard"

When pressed for a 3rd name he went with Willis.

Gower, Crowe, Border, etc etc, it's Marshall and Lillee who were seen as well above the other bowlers of the era(s)

Imran quite simply wasn't seen as being on par with those guys.
 

Top