Which Test Attack would you prefer (Electric Bogaloo)?

[shortpitched713]

Are we picking the best balance so considering batting as well, or best attack?

You get to carry one of these attacks for a modern(ish) ATG level Test teams which will face each other (no Bradman). Which do you think would run best? You should consider both the bowling potency and the impact on batting balance that each of these bowling attacks brings.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Wasim, Garner, Lillee, Lindwall? All better than Miller and Pollock?

Trueman too.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Pollock was SA’s Marshall

No, he wasn't. He was clearly better at batting but not as great a bowler. Marshall = GOAT.

Marshall was a slight upgrade on Steyn with both bat and ball.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Pollock was SA’s Davidson?

 

[kyear2]

Trueman too.

Yup

 

[kyear2]

Pollock was SA’s Davidson?

This

 

[kyear2]

It's a question that doesn't need an answer. Obviously, if Gillespie, Lee, and Warne all averaged 10 more with the bat a piece with no bowling cost, it would be helpful for Australia, or whichever Test side they played for.

Sorry, but this is disingenuous response.

You said, batting all rounders aren't that important because none of the great teams had them, but when pointed out that the great teams didn't have bowling all rounder's either, all of a sudden it doesn't matter? And you create a fictional scenario?

Come on dude.

 

[kyear2]

Pollock was SA’s Marshall

Not close or remotely. And no one who's ever watched either, or for that matter cricket, would suggest it.

 

[Coronis]

Pollock was SA’s Davidson?

So like most SA greats, inferior to the Australian counterpart.

 

[Prince EWS]

I rate Davo way higher than most but yeah he was clearly better than Pollock IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

Interesting that people are having such sticker shock with attack #2 leading with Ashwin (only due to batting order), that they are overlooking it having arguably the best pace attack of the lot.

 

[Bolo.]

Interesting that people are having such sticker shock with attack #2 leading with Ashwin (only due to batting order), that they are overlooking it having arguably the best pace attack of the lot.

It's my favourite pace attack too, but I don't think that makes up for Ashwin. And it has the weakest batting.

 

[kyear2]

Interesting that people are having such sticker shock with attack #2 leading with Ashwin (only due to batting order), that they are overlooking it having arguably the best pace attack of the lot.

Because that's how much of a step down Ashwin is from Warne and Murali.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Because that's how much of a step down Ashwin is from Warne and Murali.

Yeah, but so is Miller and to an extent Pollock from Imran

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, but so is Miller and to an extent Pollock from Imran

Yes, I mentioned that earlier as well. Pollock a bit closer than the others though.

The composites just didn't make sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes, I mentioned that earlier as well. Pollock a bit closer than the others though.

The composites just didn't make sense.

Yeah, Pollock is a bit closer than Miller; but I think Pollock and Ashwin are pretty equal; so I voted for the second team which has the best pace attack by a margin.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes, I mentioned that earlier as well. Pollock a bit closer than the others though.

The composites just didn't make sense.

The point is to generate a bit of debate on the different matchups (new ball, old ball, spin, batting), not to generate carbon copies (which is impossible anyway). Think it's been successful.

 

[kyear2]

The point is to generate a bit of debate on the different matchups (new ball, old ball, spin, batting), not to generate carbon copies (which is impossible anyway). Think it's been successful.

But you didn't mix them. Put the best pacer (by your rankings of course), with the worst spinner with the 2nd best bat. You placed you best cricketer, with your highest rates spinner with your highest rated bowler with your 3 highest graded cricketer in the same attack and went down your list in order for each selection. There was only ever going to be one winner.

 

[shortpitched713]

But you didn't mix them. Put the best pacer (by your rankings of course), with the worst spinner with the 2nd best bat. You placed you best cricketer, with your highest rates spinner with your highest rated bowler with your 3 highest graded cricketer in the same attack and went down your list in order for each selection. There was only ever going to be one winner.

I mean, it still ended up working better to produce a closer poll than whatever other methodology I used before ( Marshall and Warne being a lot of people's GOATs doesn't hurt ), so hey I'm fine with it.