The value of ATG specialist bowlers vs bowling AR's/bowlers who can bat (picking the strongest all time XI)

[OverratedSanity]

My primary objection is and will always be, selecting an all time XI bowling attack based purely on batting, I think it's philosophically wrong.

It has been pointed out before that your objection is based on a falsehood. Selecting Imran is not based purely on batting. Some of us genuinely believe he is close enough to McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall purely on bowling. You think there is a significant loss in bowling quality selecting Imran and I simply don't.

Kinda funny you say all this and then select Wasim in your XI whom you don't even rate as highly as a bowler as Imran let alone Hadlee and Marshall.

 

[Coronis]

Yes, it's what interests me.

Anything else?

Yes. Why do you think you cop many “snarky remarks”? Could it be how you ignored my earlier post tagging you in the most serious way? Or could it be that its the only way to have dialogue with you without losing it? Or both?

Seriously though @subshakerz we don’t know how you do it but gj.

 

[kyear2]

The guy literally just admitted he created three ATG sides, had Imran placed in the third, all as a massive troll.

I literally said in the next line.

On a serious note, Ambrose and Imran are close enough that Imran pips him with the batting.

Meaning it is close between the two, and it can change, but when I did the XI for the post that counts, Imran remained.

At the end of the day, he's literally my 8th best bowler, I rate all of those guys above him. You rank him 5th, I don't, so depending on what I'm focused on, yes it's not an automatic..

In that team, there's already Hadlee, so the barring at 8 covered, there's Steyn, so the reverse is covered. Ambrose, Hadlee and Steyn is a ridiculously brilliant and varied attack and took presence that day.
When I was making the other team, knowing there's Sanga at 6, and Knott at 7, Imran's batting took prescedence.

No one else here is asked to explain their team selections, and quite frankly both works.

 

[subshakerz]

It has been pointed out before that your objection is based on a falsehood. Selecting Imran is not based purely on batting. Some of us genuinely believe he is close enough to McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall purely on bowling. You think there is a significant loss in bowling quality selecting Imran and I simply don't.

Kinda funny you say all this and then select Wasim in your XI whom you don't even rate as highly as a bowler as Imran let alone Hadlee and Marshall.

He is being deliberately shifty.

He will bring up Imran being a no.8.bowler knowing that for most of us we don't see the differences with top tier as much.

Then he will never bring up Wasims ranking when he selects him in the ATG XI.

The guy knows he is avoiding actual arguments. I am not sure what sort of high he gets though from engaging in this constant circularity.

 

[kyear2]

If there was a consensus among cricket journalists that Bailey > Ponting, would you consider those views seriously?

The fact there isn't one speak to that doesn't it.

 

[ataraxia]

The fact there isn't one speak to that doesn't it.

So why do you take views like Hobbs > Bradman seriously when as I've shown Bailey > Ponting is an analogous statement?

 

[subshakerz]

On a serious note,

No there is no serious note now. You have lost the right to be taken seriously.

You just admitted to falsifying your ATG XIs to deliberately downgrade Imran. We don't need to pretend your views are serious at all now.

 

[subshakerz]

So why do you take views like Hobbs > Bradman seriously when as I've shown Bailey > Ponting is an analogous statement?

Because it suits him.

 

[ataraxia]

No there is no serious note now. You have lost the right to be taken seriously.

You just admitted to falsifying your ATG XIs to deliberately downgrade Imran. We don't need to pretend your views are serious at all now.

I see. You've demonstrated kyear's a disingenuous prick motivated by bias. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that he's an idiot.

 

[Johan]

Hobbs > Bradman as a stance is a resultant of

1. Golden Age Cricket being unanimously seen as superior to Interwar Cricket, from players to writers to fans. Hobbs himself said that he was a far inferior Cricketer after the war but his run scoring was the same, he also said he found both the bowling and the wickets far more challenging pre-war, Woolley thought Hammond won't even make the pre war English team until his 30s/peak and so forth.

2. Hobbs before the war was a phenom, he was averaging high 50s or 60s when others were managing 30s and low 40s, that was a level of dominance in a bowler friendly era that's unprecedented to this day. Hobbs himself stated he wanted to be remembered for what he was before 1919, not after.

3. Back in the day, people didn't average track all that much, they did not have a phone to pull out, type in some letters in google and immediately see statistics. Mastery over conditions was a huge point, and Hobbs was a master on every pitch, fast or slow, good or bad, dry or wet and so forth while Bradman had a tangible weakness on wet wickets, therefore Hobbs was often considered more "complete" IE more flawless despite his much inferior output on good wickets.

Basically, how Cricketers were rated before the digital age and before stats started getting mentioned all the time, was fundamentally different to how they are rated now. High levels of importance were given to the Eye test, mastery across conditions, batting style and singular performances. How EW Swanton, Sutcliffe and John Arlott rated Cricketers is far, far different than most on this site, including Kyear who is way closer in his approach to majority of this site, than he is to the people he gets the peer opinion from.

Kyear straight up doesn't even rate Pre War Cricket so that's point 1 and 2 gone, if he doesn't even rate pre War Cricket that's already 2 points he straight up can't back (see how consensus doesn't matter anymore) and He, unlike the writers and people who judged Bradman and Hobbs to be of the same class, rates by the modern more statistical approach so he can't agree with 3 either as the output gap is there.

This is kind of the issue with how peer rating/consensus are used, people don't want to commit to the implications and conditions that lead to the consensus, and only apply it when convineant, like lowering the gap between Bradman and #2.

 

[subshakerz]

Hobbs > Bradman as a stance is a resultant of

1. Golden Age Cricket being unanimously seen as superior to Interwar Cricket, from players to writers to fans. Hobbs himself said that he was a far inferior Cricketer after the war but his run scoring was the same, he also said he found both the bowling and the wickets far more challenging pre-war, Woolley thought Hammond won't even make the pre war English team until his 30s/peak and so forth.

2. Hobbs before the war was a phenom, he was averaging high 50s or 60s when others were managing 30s and low 40s, that was a level of dominance in a bowler friendly era that's unprecedented to this day. Hobbs himself stated he wanted to be remembered for what he was before 1919, not after.

3. Back in the day, people didn't average track all that much, they did not have a phone to pull out, type in some letters in google and immediately see statistics. Mastery over conditions was a huge point, and Hobbs was a master on every pitch, fast or slow, good or bad, dry or wet and so forth while Bradman had a tangible weakness on wet wickets, therefore Hobbs was often considered more "complete" IE more flawless despite his much inferior output on good wickets.

Basically, how Cricketers were rated before the digital age and before stats started getting mentioned all the time, was fundamentally different to how it's seen how. High levels of importance were given to the Eye test, mastery across conditions, batting style and singular performances.

Kyear straight up doesn't even rate Pre War Cricket so that's point 1 and 2 gone, if he doesn't even rate pre War Cricket that's already 2 points he straight up can't back (see how consensus doesn't matter anymore) and He, unlike the writers and people who judged Bradman and Hobbs to be of the same class, rated by the modern more statistical approach so he can't agree with 3 either as the output gap is there.

This is kind of the issue with how peer rating/consensus are used, people don't want to commit to the implications and conditions that lead to the consensus, and only apply it when convineant, like lowering the gap between Bradman and #2.

Good points. Yeah we should be consistent on peer rating and frankly even the occasional outlier opinion shouldn't be used as evidence. The trouble with Kyear has always been maintaining one standard.

 

[Coronis]

I literally said in the next line.

On a serious note, Ambrose and Imran are close enough that Imran pips him with the batting.

Meaning it is close between the two, and it can change, but when I did the XI for the post that counts, Imran remained.

At the end of the day, he's literally my 8th best bowler, I rate all of those guys above him. You rank him 5th, I don't, so depending on what I'm focused on, yes it's not an automatic..

In that team, there's already Hadlee, so the barring at 8 covered, there's Steyn, so the reverse is covered. Ambrose, Hadlee and Steyn is a ridiculously brilliant and varied attack and took presence that day.
When I was making the other team, knowing there's Sanga at 6, and Knott at 7, Imran's batting took prescedence.

No one else here is asked to explain their team selections, and quite frankly both works.

I literally made a post a few pages back detailing why the batting averages factor in because people don’t consider the gaps as large and well defined as you. You basically went on to ignore that and say it still doesn’t make sense for anyone else to do that because your it doesn’t line up with how you rate them.

 

[kyear2]

It has been pointed out before that your objection is based on a falsehood. Selecting Imran is not based purely on batting. Some of us genuinely believe he is close enough to McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall purely on bowling. You think there is a significant loss in bowling quality selecting Imran and I simply don't.

Kinda funny you say all this and then select Wasim in your XI whom you don't even rate as highly as a bowler as Imran let alone Hadlee and Marshall.

So I want to get into this.

I think that Marshall and McGrath are the two best and greatest bowlers that not only that I've seen, but that's ever played the game. There's no argument for me beyond that, if you're the best two, you're opening the attack. The fact that they perfectly compliment each other is an added bonus, as well as the fact that McGrath is perfectly suited to go against the wind. The fact that they've been key if not the key contributors for the two dynasties of the game, and has taken part in more high profile, high pressure "championship" series than anyone else and been extremely clutch in them, and are renowned for taking high quality top order wickets makes it a no contest, again for me.

So I don't think that anyone is close to those two from the perspectives of these exercises.

Not to address your post. You said that his selection is not base don batting, but that he's close enough to...
That's saying two things.
1) you believe that if he batted like McGrath, that he's still an automatic selection for you, or at least in contention.
2) he's not as good, but not that far off.

For the majority of the forum, he's 8th, so no I don't think that for the most of us, he's still a primary option of he couldn't bat.

And for the end point, if he's not the best, but not that far off, why am I considering him.

I want to point out again, that there's an a thread where there's a vote for the best AT attack where batting is factored in and Imran is tied with Wasim in a distant 4th, so distant that the same McGrath is close to doubling his vote total. So to be lectured saying that it's based on a falsehood, isn't borne out by said vote.
And as I've also said repeatedly in this thread, as much as I'm being told that I'm wrong, I've literally never seen an XI that included Imran and Hadlee, it presumably doesn't exist.

Now to Wasim. No I don't rank him in the top 4, but I'll again explain my rationale. Two guys get the new ball, why select 3 new ball bowlers. The third option will be primarily responsible, along with Warne and Sobers, shepherding the attack through the dog overs of the end of cycle old ball. As such I want the best old ball bowler ever. Wasim was not only that, mastering reverse swing, but capable of moving the old and the new ball both directions.
He also has the most ridiculously high rating among his peers and pundits alike.
He fits every single requirement I have for the spot. Is it as locked in as every other spot, no, but pretty decently so for now.

Imran fills none of those requirements for me.

Please tell me what is wrong with any of that.

 

[subshakerz]

So I want to get into this.

Proceeds to not address any of that actual argument. Again.

 

[kyear2]

He is being deliberately shifty.

He will bring up Imran being a no.8.bowler knowing that for most of us we don't see the differences with top tier as much.

Then he will never bring up Wasims ranking when he selects him in the ATG XI.

The guy knows he is avoiding actual arguments. I am not sure what sort of high he gets though from engaging in this constant circularity.

I entered this conversation in good faith and you're being disingenuous as usual.

The entire purpose of this little interrogation would almost make a passive observer believe that I'm the only person who holds these beliefs and I'm so far off the beaten track and that the entire forum, historical prescedence of AT XI's and every conceivable metric is against me.

Imran makes the occasional AT XI, he doesn't make the majority of them, far from. Not the major ones from Wisden and Cricinfo, not from the majority of former players, not from writers, historians or pundits, none of them place him in a plurality of these teams.

I will again reference a poll where it's shown that Imran isn't a lock even on bat deep heavy CW, infact he's very much on the outside looking in. As the vote currently stands, Imran had 18 of 59 cast votes.



So, again why am I being interrogated, attacked and treated like the lone voice in the wilderness, when my views are very much in line with not only the community at large, but the wider cricketing world as well.

As much as you want to paint me as the exception to the rule and the Imran hater, it's very much your opinion that's in the minority here and outside of CW.

So again, why the animosity towards me?

 

[subshakerz]

Please tell me what is wrong with any of that.

Simple question: would you select Wasim if he had a batting average of 5?

 

[subshakerz]

So again, why the animosity towards me?

Because you don't apply one standard to assessing cricketers.

And now you admit to falsifying your views to downgrade cricketers you don't like.

 

[kyear2]

So why do you take views like Hobbs > Bradman seriously when as I've shown Bailey > Ponting is an analogous statement?

Because it not.

You've literally just made it up.

That's the ultimate strawman argument.

The crazy part is that everyone here only accepts views that they agree with. The same writers and former players are otherwise referenced and accepted, until it doesn't fit into your preferred narrative. And instead of trying to understand the why, it's dismissed.

That's like cherry picking the bible to find the stuff you do right and ignoring the parts that speaks to what you wrong.

Sutcliffe wasn't that highly rated either, not in comparison to the 3Hs, Bradman or Headley.

But we see the average and we run with it.

 

[kyear2]

No there is no serious note now. You have lost the right to be taken seriously.

You just admitted to falsifying your ATG XIs to deliberately downgrade Imran. We don't need to pretend your views are serious at all now.

I've literally just posted where, after denying you ever said it. That toy need to knock down Ambrose a peg, similarly as you've been successful in knocking down Kallis and you say I shouldn't be taken seriously.

Tou say not everything you say or post is about Imran, but you think I posted a team with the sole intent of downgrading one player.

When you've made it clear that that's basically what you do.for anyone who opposes said player.

I said it just now and I'll say it again, Ambrose, Steyn, Hadlee is a better attack than inserting Imran into it.

When doing the other XI, and looking at the batting with Knott at 7, Imran made more sense at that point. It's not iron clad either way, but the official one has Imran in the 2nd.

You can accept it or not, bit let's not pretend that everything thing you post isn't with the intent of promoting one player, even if it's by knocking down others a peg.

 

[kyear2]

Because you don't apply one standard to assessing cricketers.

And now you admit to falsifying your views to downgrade cricketers you don't like.

No, that what you have demonstrated.