Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[smash84]

From what i heard from older uncles who saw cricket in 70s and 80s was that imran was decent number 7 batsmen or at best number 6. Comparing him with yousuf is madness

Yeah, I have seen a bit of Imran. He wasn't close to MoYo

 

[Bolo.]

2. Yes in that period they had a good record, they also played quite a bit of us, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and England and beat up on India a couple times. Australia, was still the best team in the world at that time.

You know Aus also played these teams in the same period, right? You are trying to present RSA beating teams AUS couldn't as a criticism? Aus lost to India, drew to WI and NZ, and lost to SL, who was the only team RSA drew to.

RSA generated better results than GOAT candidate Aus for a number of years. Yes?

And they did it with worse specialist bowlers, yes? Two great bowlers, but their 3rd best bowler was a batting AR. And after in the era, it was meh or bad, and their spin was pure trash.

And they did it with worse specialist bats, yes? Aus was exclusively quality. RSA had some quality players, and some boderline/below test quality. And Aus had Gilchrist at his peak for most of this period.

Look at the run of results that a seriously flawed RSA team generated over a number of years. Better than a GOAT candidate team at the time. Better than anything RSA have ever managed over a similar stretch of time. You want to claim that ARs didn't have an impact?

 

[Bolo.]

He's 194th on PEWS's standardised averages.

Emphatic win.

 

[kyear2]

You'd have different player types for different conditions. It doesn't change the value of the bowling AR.

A better bowler is a better bowler, regardless of conditions. If you don't get that you don't get cricket and you might as well quit this site. A better bowling attack because of this will always be able to force wins even when conditions aren't favourable for them, because they'll have a better rotation of quality overs and will not concede as many runs as an attack with a worse bowler.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy you shouldn't lean on like a guardrail. Use that mass of cells in your head known collectively as the brain and come up with a better argument please.

Quantity of quality overs is what we're talking about here, not just quantity of bowlers. Less bowlers = more worse overs due to less rotations = less quality overs.

You don't have a thought process at all to be saying this to me.

He's not a better bowler though, as you'll often get with a 5th option you're partially choosing for their batting. He was useless away from specially prepared pitches. He wasn't close to being a viable 5th bowler in most far less all conditions.

I wonder if you have brain cells. The batting all rounders is preferred because they exist within the top order, and most teams that actually understand the game would prioritize not going in a batsman short.

You, in your infinite shortsightedness and inability to grasp nuance, and going on your stated and inflexible stance that bowlers are substantially more important than batsmen, fail to note that you still have to place runs on the board. And consistently going into a match a batsman short comes with it's perils.

This is accentuated by the relatively limited impact of the 5th bowler. The primary role of same is assisting with the rotation and taking up overs with the old ball before the new one is taken. And as the fifth bowler would generally not be quite on the level of the primary 4 ones, being an all rounder and all, every over bowled is a compromise in quality especially past the 10 per innings that that relief bowler normally gets.

As I explained in the previous post, in a particularly helpful pitch, the fifth bowler role is minimized as the top 4 is basically all that's needed, while you're automatically a batsman short in helpful conditions.
Even in neutral conditions how many overs are you getting, especially with the ball being anything close to useful to make the batting offset worth it? And again, bowling all rounders are as such, and bat in the lower order because they aren't nearly as consistent with the bat.

Not to to your next nonsense point. "Appealing to authority is a fallacy" ? Referencing consensus and prescedence doesn't make my argument, it supports it. You don't think teams have figured out the balance required to be successful? You don't think Australia weighted the pros and decided it was best to bat Gilchrist at 7? You don't think that all the pundits and former players who have played and followed the game have an informed enough view of the game that yours usurps it? And it's not as if it's evenly split, there isn't a single AT team where Imran makes it over Sobers, actually most of them are unanimous in favor of the West Indian. But no, I've clearly made my point above, the fact that "authority" reinforces it is just a plus.

There's almost always 5 bowlers, the quantity and quality of overs generally available to said bowlers doesn't equate to the necessity of 5 front line operators. A batting all rounders in almost all scenarios is more than enough.

 

[kyear2]

It's the strawman that he keeps bringing up for some reason, and one that nobody is arguing for.

It keeps coming back to the same point that you mentioned earlier. Many posters here don't believe that the gaps in quality among the top 10 bowlers are too large. Most think they are in the same ballpark in terms of quality. Apparently, it's too hard for him to grasp this simple concept.

This is just your typical disingenuous, intellectually dishonest argument.

You're (now) literally arguing for selecting the bowlers based on their batting average, regardless of how you want to spin it.

You're selecting Hadlee and especially Imran based on the fact that they have higher batting averages than the alternatives. Period.

McGrath is a vastly superior bowler over Imran, and one of the few candidates for the GOAT position, a category Imran has never been hinted at being a part of.

And regardless of how much better Pigeon is over Immy, it's unquestionable that he was better, and easily so.

So yes, you are indeed choosing your new and supposed AT blowing attack based on batting averages.

And many is a stretch.
McGrath (despite your vote change) is easily 2nd in the vote tally, ahead of Hadlee. Again, the three bowlers rated as the best on CW are leading here, indicating that most are selecting based on bowling quality alone.

Imran on the other hand has 23 votes out of a possible 71, just one more than Wasim and almost doubled up by the "batting meme" that is McGrath.
And not all of those 23 votes also align with those of Hadlee voters, so again to say "many" voters here align with the #batdeep ideology is incorrect. I believe the terminology you were looking for was small but exceptionally vocal and arrogant minority.

 

[kyear2]

Maths. For every single team in history, Imran will be much more valuable than McGrath. As the quality of cricket rises, all-rounders are less impactful. But even at that level the difference between the 1st and 5th best bowler of all time is way less significant than the difference between the 200th and 200,000th best batters.

He's simply not true, and cricket isn't played on spread sheets.

And no, one would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who's not of Pakistani heritage who ranks Imran as the 5th best bowler of all time. During his career he was seen as being well behind Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and arguably Holding in his own damn era. Wasim makes more of these teams than he does.

With regards to him and McGrath.
One was the singular largest reason why their team was the greatest ever. The other one during his bowling career averaged 17 at home, aided by rampant ball tampering and the most biased umpiring of all time, while averaging 25 away from home. A delta of 8... The batting rpi during his bowling career was 27, and even that was aided by some serious down hill skiing.

No, Australians aren't choosing Imran over McGrath for that team, and he's definitely isn't more valuable.

 

[Srinath P]

In my all time test XI I had Imran, Barnes, Hadlee and Marshall as my pacers

Shane Warne and Sobers offer spin options

 

[Coronis]

McGrath is a vastly superior bowler over Imran, and one of the few candidates for the GOAT position, a category Imran has never been hinted at being a part of.

And regardless of how much better Pigeon is over Immy, it's unquestionable that he was better, and easily so..

Again this is the crux of the argument, some people rate Imran higher than you do.

 

[ankitj]

Literally every great bowler has great series everywhere, what Imran lacked was consistency.

Imran has player of the series awards in Australia, England, India and West Indies.

 

[kyear2]

Sometimes I really feel it's better to run head first into a wall than arguing Kyear...... I take Hadlee over McGrath as rate them as practically equivalent bowlers, the same reason I will take Sobers over Tendulkar in any team. And Imran is preferred for McGrath as I feel 3 new ball bowlers are redundant and ofcourse, he is a proper allrounder. Marshall's batting is a good addition, but won't care if he was a bunny like McGrath. Heck, I have Murali here over Warne.

Well know that ataraxia and bolo are arguing something completely different. They have been quite clear.

Xix's argument as well is way more 5 bowler based than batting deep.

 

[kyear2]

And if you feel Gilchrist is going to be exposed up the order for being a great downhill skier, there's always Andy Flower.

So on top of being a batsman short, a middling cordon outside of Sobers with no viable option at 3rd, you also now have a keeper that's below test standard.

 

[kyear2]

But really, Imran should make a list of the 100 greatest test batsmen. He averaged 51 over a 10-year, 52-test period – it's just his early career as a bowler who could bat that drags his overall record down.

(Reminder, kids: not outs don't boost averages.)

That entire statement is honestly laughable.

 

[kyear2]

Flower was pretty poor with the gloves, definitely not someone you back to keep to Murali of all people, could give it to Clyde Walcott or AB De Villiers if you're feeling bold and don't have Gilchrist.

If your thing is boosting the bowling to take wickets, should also prioritize the people taking the chances, and in his scenario the cordon and especially keeper are substandard.

Though I would say that Sunny (from all I've read) was just about Warne level, average to acceptable, but below elite / exceptional / world class.

Third is just a wasteland.

 

[kyear2]

Because looking at his stats beyond his average in that period yes, you can absolutely tell his quality is well, well below that of an average 50 averaging batsman. He scored heavily at home and in draws. Averaged 38 in that period in wins. Lot of empty runs. iirc his average in draws is 75+ during that period. 50 average is very misleading lol

His rpi and rpm during that period was considerably lower than his average as well. Down hill skiing / empty runs and not outs.

And when we're looking at his batting during his all rounder years, his average was 32, with a rpi of 27. His average jumped from 32 to 37 between the end of '89 till the end of his career.

So even with the raw numbers, the quality want there when he was the "all rounder".

 

[kyear2]

Who cares? He's showcasing the same skills that could turn losses into draws; whether that actually happened or not isn't his fault.

You're grasping at straws now.

 

[ataraxia]

He's simply not true, and cricket isn't played on spread sheets.

Wrong, it is.

And no, one would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who's not of Pakistani heritage who ranks Imran as the 5th best bowler of all time. During his career he was seen as being well behind Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and arguably Holding in his own damn era. Wasim makes more of these teams than he does.

You asked me for my opinion so I gave it. I think he's the 5th best seamer, maybe 4th. Because over the widely derided period in which he averaged 51 with the bat, filling his boots on dead wickets or whatever, he also bowled an awful lot on dead wickets but still averaged 19.

With regards to him and McGrath.
One was the singular largest reason why their team was the greatest ever. The other one during his bowling career averaged 17 at home, aided by rampant ball tampering and the most biased umpiring of all time, while averaging 25 away from home. A delta of 8... The batting rpi during his bowling career was 27, and even that was aided by some serious down hill skiing.

No, Australians aren't choosing Imran over McGrath for that team, and he's definitely isn't more valuable.

**** off if the 2000s Australian team denied Imran for McGrath it would be the stupidest thing in cricket history. He'd have made an absolute killing with the bat on dead 00s wickets to the extent that he's basically more valuable than Martyn with bat alone.

 

[kyear2]

You know Aus also played these teams in the same period, right? You are trying to present RSA beating teams AUS couldn't as a criticism? Aus lost to India, drew to WI and NZ, and lost to SL, who was the only team RSA drew to.

RSA generated better results than GOAT candidate Aus for a number of years. Yes?

And they did it with worse specialist bowlers, yes? Two great bowlers, but their 3rd best bowler was a batting AR. And after in the era, it was meh or bad, and their spin was pure trash.

And they did it with worse specialist bats, yes? Aus was exclusively quality. RSA had some quality players, and some boderline/below test quality. And Aus had Gilchrist at his peak for most of this period.

Look at the run of results that a seriously flawed RSA team generated over a number of years. Better than a GOAT candidate team at the time. Better than anything RSA have ever managed over a similar stretch of time. You want to claim that ARs didn't have an impact?

You conveniently skipped the next line referencing when they subsequently faced Australia and summarily lost.

Also the other specialist based teams referenced that were all better than that SA team. Not to add again that they had two ATG bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

Again this is the crux of the argument, some people rate Imran higher than you do.

In the evidence of every poll and ranking on this forum and everything I've read and witnessed during the era they played, not that many.

Do you?

 

[Xix2565]

He's not a better bowler though, as you'll often get with a 5th option you're partially choosing for their batting. He was useless away from specially prepared pitches. He wasn't close to being a viable 5th bowler in most far less all conditions.

I wonder if you have brain cells. The batting all rounders is preferred because they exist within the top order, and most teams that actually understand the game would prioritize not going in a batsman short.

You, in your infinite shortsightedness and inability to grasp nuance, and going on your stated and inflexible stance that bowlers are substantially more important than batsmen, fail to note that you still have to place runs on the board. And consistently going into a match a batsman short comes with it's perils.

This is accentuated by the relatively limited impact of the 5th bowler. The primary role of same is assisting with the rotation and taking up overs with the old ball before the new one is taken. And as the fifth bowler would generally not be quite on the level of the primary 4 ones, being an all rounder and all, every over bowled is a compromise in quality especially past the 10 per innings that that relief bowler normally gets.

As I explained in the previous post, in a particularly helpful pitch, the fifth bowler role is minimized as the top 4 is basically all that's needed, while you're automatically a batsman short in helpful conditions.
Even in neutral conditions how many overs are you getting, especially with the ball being anything close to useful to make the batting offset worth it? And again, bowling all rounders are as such, and bat in the lower order because they aren't nearly as consistent with the bat.

Not to to your next nonsense point. "Appealing to authority is a fallacy" ? Referencing consensus and prescedence doesn't make my argument, it supports it. You don't think teams have figured out the balance required to be successful? You don't think Australia weighted the pros and decided it was best to bat Gilchrist at 7? You don't think that all the pundits and former players who have played and followed the game have an informed enough view of the game that yours usurps it? And it's not as if it's evenly split, there isn't a single AT team where Imran makes it over Sobers, actually most of them are unanimous in favor of the West Indian. But no, I've clearly made my point above, the fact that "authority" reinforces it is just a plus.

There's almost always 5 bowlers, the quantity and quality of overs generally available to said bowlers doesn't equate to the necessity of 5 front line operators. A batting all rounders in almost all scenarios is more than enough.

He being who, Ashwin or Jadeja? Please be specific. I'm not going to hold the fact that pitches in fast bowling dominant places get made to basically take spin out of the equation against either of them, especially when their record vs other spinners in their games still is decent.

You are so ****ing stupid it's baffling you want to project your deficiencies onto me. Batting ARs aren't preferred anymore than bowling ARs, but they just offer less value to a Test side in general because of their primary skill being less valuable. Bowling is the more valuable skill and given that there's less bowlers vs batters in a side it inherently makes bowlers/bowling ARs more valuable. Your batting lineup's runs don't just come from thin air, they have to face the opposition attack to score them and it's going to be easier in general to score vs the worse attack than the better one. The batters will have less runs to make/outscore simply because their bowling attack is better at taking wickets and containing runs. It makes life easier for everyone and that you don't want this is insane. Get a straitjacket and check yourself in for your own safety.

We're talking about picking in general, aren't we? Either way, having the bowling advantage is key and part of that in such hypotheticals is to be able to have more quality options while maintaining the balance in the side. Hence 5 >>>> 4. Simpletons can get this. Australia not needing one because of having McWarne and a better 4 man attack than anyone else in that era is not a great rebuttal, it just shows that like every great side they had the bowling superiority to dominate the era. I don't see why I have to subscribe to punditry which doesn't use logic or facts to make a point here, nor do I care about who makes more fans' ATG lists. You're still using a fallacy to make a point, which just shows that you're so utterly incapable of making a coherent argument.

A batting allrounder is basically meaningless in such discussions because we're talking about going up against batters who average like 70-80 vs bowlers averaging over 30. I'll take Imran or Hadlee over Sobers and Kallis any time any day if they could only occupy one spot.

 

[Xix2565]

Well know that ataraxia and bolo are arguing something completely different. They have been quite clear.

Xix's argument as well is way more 5 bowler based than batting deep.

You can bat deep with 5 bowlers though, they're not separate points here ffs. Read and understand please, this is genuinely worrying.