This is your worst argument imo.
All time world teams don't matter in reality. They're two steps up from real cricket.
Ronnie Irani may have actually been the third best player in county cricket without deserving a spot in the England side at some periods. That's fine.
The thing we must always remember about these sides is that they aren't real and don't actually matter. If someone doesn't make one because or balance issues or what have you then it doesn't diminish how valuable they were in real games they played in.
Now I think Imran should be in the side anyway. But no, it's definitely possible to be the third best player at a lower level and not suit the balance of a combined side without making people have to rethink the former.
These imaginary time travel exercises are fun but if you actually think they should have a bearing on who was better in real life you need to touch grass.
Forget higher levels, McGrath to me is a better cricketer than Imran.
McGrath rose to the occasion and elevated his team to the best ever in the moments that mattered.
He was quite arguably the greatest new ball bowler ever and along with Marshall, IMO the greatest bowlers of all time, and for now for me, the only two in that debate.
That's touching the grass, what wins, not what looks better in a spreadsheet.
It's the part of the sport that impacts success and wins. And the lower order batting that is glorified here to amounts that's never been reflected in impact or results.
Back to your primary argument, regardless on how you try to couch the argument. If cannot make an all pro / all time / all NBA / all world team, you're not the slam dunk top 3 anything of all time. You think he's the 3rd best cricketer of all time and he makes yours, correct?
And shock, these teams are constructed based on impact from
real games they played in. We just disagree on said impact.