Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Xix2565]

If your performance is reliant on specially prepared pitches, it is a problem.

The thing is that I have repeatedly given my reasoning as to why Kallis, Hammond or Sobers are a better and more viable option for the all rounder spot over Imran and especially Hadlee, the overwhelming and unanimous referenced consensus is purely to provide verification and precedence to the argument. It's not something that's remotely up for discussion. And with regards to my perceived bias, Cricinfo had a bias as well? It was unanimous, Wisden had a bias?

Andy Flower has never been a great wicket keeper, a world class wicket keeper or even a full test standard one. He himself acknowledged that he knew he wasn't particularly special with the gloves and that Zim would be better suited by a better specialist. There have been many test keepers who have been below test standard, Pant is one example now. We've had plenty, Browne and Murray comes to mind.

With regards to slip fielding, I've already said that it's not as important as primary batting nor bowling. That's considerably different to comparing it to supplementary bowling or lower order batting. But the value of a specialist isn't lower and is vital for selection. Multiple players have been selected on the basis of their slip catching and much more have maintained their places because of it. This isn't a new premise nor game breaking, since the advent of fast bowling supremacy, it's been noted where most of the catches were taken and the importance of having socialists in such positions. I'm not sure if you grasp the concept that a dropped catch is a wicket lost. Even in this WTC final catching has played a greater role and had a bigger impact than either no 8 batsman or any of the 5th bowlers.
There's an entire thread where this has been litigated and there are viable arguments for each. I also don't assume that I know everything and reached out to the longest tenured and most respected members of the forum who all basically echoed my sentiments. You cannot win with a sub par cordon, history speaks to this as well. It's been a critical pillar in the success of the greatest modern teams of our era. All of the bowlers who gets the credit relied heavily on their catching support. Even from the 70's, Lillee, the quartet, Marshall, McGrath and Warne, Steyn. Even Hadlee had Coney and Crowe. The catches don't take themselves and it is a valuable and selectable skill. It turns matches, dropped catches actually looses them.

So we'll just ignore all the Tests where batters could make runs and Ashwin/Jadeja still dominated, just like all the other great bowlers who do well even when the pitches aren't bowling friendly. I understand that you don't like watching anyone you don't rate but this is incredibly stupid.

Yes, groups of people who value different things incorrectly (just like you) can be biased. That doesn't change how good Imran and Hadlee were, even compared to Kallis/Sobers/etc.

Again, I'm not accepting **** from someone who's so prone to making things up, and doesn't want to acknowledge the batting superiority anyway of Flower vs Gilly.

You say you don't think slip fielding is as valuable, yet want to bitch and moan so much about how important it is and why picking players who aren't great at that is so bad and insulting to you. Shut up and accept that you have an idiot's view of what works in Test cricket and acknowledge that you need to learn from people like me. Don't respond again until you fix yourself.

 

[kyear2]

I think Marshall and McGrath stroll into this side easily. As others have mentioned, McGrath played in the most batter friendly era in the history of the modern game. Third spot I went with Ambrose but really wanted Hadlee as well. But Marshall + McGrath + Ambrose is just so intimidating

For me, and tbh, it's just the first two that's "non negotiable". They have the intangibles, attributes, and complimentary skill sets that makes them not only the perfect opening. Combination, but irreplaceable,and again, for me.

At some point you have to factor in who's the best attack.

And the lower order batting isn't lacking. As with my attack, Wasim, Marshall and Warne are all more than capable with each being in the double digits with regards to times passing the half century mark.

And that's on top of the greatest batters ever and Gilchrist at 7.

I want guys who are in the discussion or argument as to who's the greatest or best bowlers of all time, or as in the case of Wasim, the best old ball bowler ever someone with a ridiculous rating by their peers.

I know everyone has their own criteria, but if you can get the two best opening bowlers ever, who just happen to compliment each other perfectly, plus the best old ball operator who just happens to offer variety and a different trajectory, plus the greatest spinner and three of them can actually bat, I don't see what's the problem.

Ambrose is a bowler for whom I've witnessed his entire career and one that I believe is easily too 5 of all time. Wouldn't be my choice for first change, but he's also someone who's probably underappreciated in these exercises.

 

[Cipher]

It was with Malinga he learnt the trade. Eventually became better than the mentor.

 

[Cipher]

get the two best opening bowlers ever, who just happen to compliment each other perfectly

I think this is the strongest argument against a full bat deep philosophy. None of the bowling all rounders can extract the same bounce that McGrath & Ambrose can. Contrasting styles in a bowling unit is important because different batsman will handle some styles better than others. There's no statistics to say how much better that makes your bowling attack but you'd want every possible advantage you can get for your bowlers to get ATG batsmen out & extra bounce can trouble the best.

 

[Coronis]

I think this is the strongest argument against a full bat deep philosophy. None of the bowling all rounders can extract the same bounce that McGrath & Ambrose can. Contrasting styles in a bowling unit is important because different batsman will handle some styles better than others. There's no statistics to say how much better that makes your bowling attack but you'd want every possible advantage you can get for your bowlers to get ATG batsmen out & extra bounce can trouble the best.

What about Garner?

 

[Thala_0710]

What about Garner?

He's a batting all rounder

 

[Bolo.]

I think this is the strongest argument against a full bat deep philosophy. None of the bowling all rounders can extract the same bounce that McGrath & Ambrose can. Contrasting styles in a bowling unit is important because different batsman will handle some styles better than others. There's no statistics to say how much better that makes your bowling attack but you'd want every possible advantage you can get for your bowlers to get ATG batsmen out & extra bounce can trouble the best.

I agree that variety is very important. Extra bounce would be great, its the definitive factor for me. Everyone on list list was better in particular areas than others, and you are sacrificing some skills no matter who you go with. All of them guys caused serious issues with bounce-it's not a hole regardless of who you pick.

Bounce is always handy, but it's more of a new ball and pace friendly pitch weapon. Not times I'm concerned with this lineup coming right. I want effectiveness with an older ball/on flatter pitches more than bounce, as it will be most of the time bowling.

That said, if we ignore batting completely, I do pick McGrath for variety, and extra bounce is a factor. But it's less of a factor than him being a seam bowler and not wanting to duplicate swing skills.

 

[kyear2]

I think this is the strongest argument against a full bat deep philosophy. None of the bowling all rounders can extract the same bounce that McGrath & Ambrose can. Contrasting styles in a bowling unit is important because different batsman will handle some styles better than others. There's no statistics to say how much better that makes your bowling attack but you'd want every possible advantage you can get for your bowlers to get ATG batsmen out & extra bounce can trouble the best.

Basically this.

You also want a guy who can and would be willing to bowl into the wind. Complimentary cricket.

I get the batting argument, but how do you get around trying to put put together the best possible new ball attack.

And it's not as if the batting is suffering.

If someone wants Imran 3rd, that's their decision, and it's a viable one, just not mine. I'll go Wasim, Steyn then Imran or Hadlee as 3rd options.

What I do find baffling about the arguments for dual capacity for the bowlers disappears when it comes to the batting selections.

But that's for another thread