I just feel that someone rating him highly isn't necessarily wrong. While he's certainly not my favourite, he's definitely an ATG in my book. He's certainly good enough to be considered in someones top 5 IMO.It's not "Larwood dissing". Suggesting he isn't the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly the gravest insult.
I personally find it incredible that anyone could rate him above someone like Marshall. Seems ridiculous to me.
I'm certainly not taking anything away from any of those bowlers. The reason I brought up his FC record was to counter the point brought up about his less-than-stellar Test stats.There's plenty of bowlers with quality FC records tbh. Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh etc.
And we don't agree, hence the posts arguing as such. It's definitely not "dissing him" to suggest he shouldn't be in someone's top five - he has 78 Test wickets @ 28.35.I just feel that someone rating him highly isn't necessarily wrong. While he's certainly not my favourite, he's definitely an ATG in my book. He's certainly good enough to be considered in someones top 5 IMO.
To be one of the greatest bowlers of all-time you need to dominate all levels. Larwood was extremely effective during the bodyline series, but at the end of the day, the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Donald, Holding, Garner etc. were all better at taking more wickets for less runs. And that's what cricket's about.I'm certainly not taking anything away from any of those bowlers. The reason I brought up his FC record was to counter the point brought up about his less-than-stellar Test stats.
And correspondingly weakens the batting with Imran batting at 6.If you play Imran instead of Sobers then the attack has the best of everything;
Imran-Marshall-Lillee-Warne-Murali
Gilchrist would bat six, surely?And correspondingly weakens the batting with Imran batting at 6.
And we don't agree, hence the posts arguing as such. It's definitely not "dissing him" to suggest he shouldn't be in someone's top five - he has 78 Test wickets @ 28.35.
To be one of the greatest bowlers of all-time you need to dominate all levels. Larwood was extremely effective during the bodyline series, but at the end of the day, the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Donald, Holding, Garner etc. were all better at taking more wickets for less runs. And that's what cricket's about.
You could argue his stats are tainted by a number of factors (Bradman, for one), but looking at other bowlers from the same timeframe, such as Gubby Allen (81 @ 29.37), Ken Farnes (60 @ 28.65), Bill Bowes (68 @ 22.33) and George Geary (46 @ 29.41) - they've all got extremely familiar records. Why do we not consider Bowes an ATG? Or Farnes?
I'm not arguing against the impact Larwood/Jardine/bodyline had on the game, and I rate the aforementioned duo higher than most, I'm just speechless you could even consider him as one of the best bowlers ever. Just doesn't sit well with me.
You still loose quite a bit with Gilchrist/Imran over Sobers/Gilchrist additionally five specialist bowlers are a bit of over kill considering Sobers is still in the team and at the expense of a specialst bat (Richards or Tendulkar)Gilchrist would bat six, surely?
Best Bowling Combination PossibleAnd correspondingly weakens the batting with Imran batting at 6.
The point of this thread is to find the best possible bowling combination(s). Batting is irrelevant.You still loose quite a bit with Gilchrist/Imran over Sobers/Gilchrist additionally five specialist bowlers are a bit of over kill considering Sobers is still in the team and at the expense of a specialst bat (Richards or Tendulkar)
Can't think of an example in history where a great team depended on 5 specialist bowlers at the expense of a genuine batsman. Australia tried it a couple of times with Gilly, but only in extreme conditions and always reverted back afterwards.
Yeh, but surely for the sake of the discussion, you're fitting them in to a team setting somehow?Best Bowling Combination Possible
not
List the bowlers you'd pick in your ATWXI for the thousandth time
If you want to consider the batting component while selecting the best possible bowling attack then we make the assumption that a top 6 consisting of Hobbs-Hutton-Bradman-Lara-Tendulkar-Gilchrist would make enough runs to defend. For the sake of argument we'll say enough runs is about 350.Yeh, but surely for the sake of the discussion, you're fitting them in to a team setting somehow?
Which is why most people pick four, then have Sobers as an extra. Therefore discussion on whether you include Imran as fifth option is somewhat relevant.
Surely you're not arguing an ATG team without Sobers? At very least he'd play ahead of either Lara or Tendulkar....If you want to consider the batting component while selecting the best possible bowling attack then we make the assumption that a top 6 consisting of Hobbs-Hutton-Bradman-Lara-Tendulkar-Gilchrist would make enough runs to defend. For the sake of argument we'll say enough runs is about 350.
You also then make the assumption that Imran-Marshalll-Lillee-Warne-Murali would then knock over the opposition's batting order for less runs, on any type of wicket, even though their top 6 would be about as strong.
The advantage of playing 3 quicks plus Warne and Murali is that the attack has maximum potency on a variety of wickets. On a flat track that gives the fast bowlers absolutely nothing you really need 2 high-quality spinners operating at both ends to bowl-out a high-class team twice in 5 days. At least I think so.
I'll be 5th change. Wobbly little out swingers ftr.mcgrath and uvelocity
I disagree, 6 batsmen (one of who can bowl a bit) and four front line bowlers (3 fast and 1 spin) is the mold from modern history to be succesful, especially the post covered pitches era. The era of two spinners as a winning combination, outside of some special circumstances or on some roads in the s/c are a part of the nostalgic past.Surely you're not arguing an ATG team without Sobers? At very least he'd play ahead of either Lara or Tendulkar....
I agree with you on the two spinner thing, I'm a big fan. Taking in to account all of cricket's history, two spinners should really be included.
You can leave out Lara, Tendulkar, or whatever random player I might have thought of at the time, and put Sobers in if you like.Surely you're not arguing an ATG team without Sobers? At very least he'd play ahead of either Lara or Tendulkar....
I agree with you on the two spinner thing, I'm a big fan. Taking in to account all of cricket's history, two spinners should really be included.
I've never been one of those people who look at the stats much as they can often be twisted and turned to prove just about any point. As I said, his FC stats were exceptionally good and there is a fairly large gulf between them and his test stats which, as you yourself pointed out, do not necessarily tell the whole story. I could pick someone like John Ferris and his stats are just incredible, but in all honesty, he could just be an over-hyped version of Ajantha Mendis for all we know. I find actual accounts of how good a player is to be a better measure on the whole.And we don't agree, hence the posts arguing as such. It's definitely not "dissing him" to suggest he shouldn't be in someone's top five - he has 78 Test wickets @ 28.35.
To be one of the greatest bowlers of all-time you need to dominate all levels. Larwood was extremely effective during the bodyline series, but at the end of the day, the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Donald, Holding, Garner etc. were all better at taking more wickets for less runs. And that's what cricket's about.
You could argue his stats are tainted by a number of factors (Bradman, for one), but looking at other bowlers from the same timeframe, such as Gubby Allen (81 @ 29.37), Ken Farnes (60 @ 28.65), Bill Bowes (68 @ 22.33) and George Geary (46 @ 29.41) - they've all got extremely familiar records. Why do we not consider Bowes an ATG? Or Farnes?
I'm not arguing against the impact Larwood/Jardine/bodyline had on the game, and I rate the aforementioned duo higher than most, I'm just speechless you could even consider him as one of the best bowlers ever. Just doesn't sit well with me.
I'd say having the two greatest spinners of all time at your disposal qualifies this as "exceptional circumstances".I disagree, 6 batsmen (one of who can bowl a bit) and four front line bowlers (3 fast and 1 spin) is the mold from modern history to be succesful, especially the post covered pitches era. The era of two spinners as a winning combination, outside of some special circumstances or on some roads in the s/c are a part of the nostalgic past.
Also fully agree, Sobers was a better bat than Sachin and Lara, no argument.