Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Prince EWS]

Coincidentally it was in India in 86/87.

Imran Khan bowling in India with a broken toenail.

Probably a victim of the toenail-eating spider, found commonly in Chennai.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran imo is certified atg and greatest asian fast bowler( praying bumrah suppress imran by end of his career ) he is as good as ambrose and styen.

Between 79 after WSC to 88, his bowling peak, Imran played 13 series, was sub 20 average in nine of them (including in India, Aus, England and WI), sub 25 in three, and only against India in 86/87 did he perform poorly as India had prepared featherbeds to ensure no result.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think so tbh. Barring Lillee for Imran, I wouldn't make the change for any of the other teams.
You don't change the best bowler ever in Marshall, who consistently wins you games, with any other bowler. Same for Bumrah who consistently wins us matches away, and would have had won us even more if we had a half decent batting line up in the last 5 years (no Imran's batting wouldn't change it, you'd need a Tendulkar level bat to do it). And same is the case for Australia, why do you need a bowlers batting so much when you've already got Gilly at 7. Mcgrath's bowling away from home (and at home) and especially getting top order wkts, is just too valuable to them that they wouldn't swap him for Imran.

I would swap Bumrah for Imran, without considering his batting. Would make the field more regularly.

 

[subshakerz]

I would swap Bumrah for Imran, without considering his batting. Would make the field more regularly.

Yeah unfortunately this is a handicap for Bumrah.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think so tbh. Barring Lillee for Imran, I wouldn't make the change for any of the other teams.
You don't change the best bowler ever in Marshall, who consistently wins you games, with any other bowler. Same for Bumrah who consistently wins us matches away, and would have had won us even more if we had a half decent batting line up in the last 5 years (no Imran's batting wouldn't change it, you'd need a Tendulkar level bat to do it). And same is the case for Australia, why do you need a bowlers batting so much when you've already got Gilly at 7. Mcgrath's bowling away from home (and at home) and especially getting top order wkts, is just too valuable to them that they wouldn't swap him for Imran.

Re batting as well, Sachin is coming in for a 30 averaging bat. On average, you can expect an additional RPI of 30 runs with him there. Imran is coming for a sub 10 one. There's atleast a 20 RPI increase. His batting record in India is also bafflingly good, with even winning a MoTS mostly for batting. Jadeja at 7, Imran at 8 and Ashwin 9; and you can expect them to drag your sub par top and middle order to something salvageable. Ofcourse not the same as putting Tendulkar in the team since ofc net RPI increase isn't the only method, but damn would it be a big advantage.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Between '76 and '84 he averaged 27 in Australia with a strike rate of almost 64.
In England a strike rate of 58, In India an average of 28 with a strike rate of 61, and that's from '79 to '87.

You probably need to make up your mind on whether you actually count WSC stats or not. With WSC, Imran averages 23 at a SR of 57 in Australia in that period, which is pretty fantastic by any standard. I am completely ok with excluding WSC from his record but you ignoring it for Imran but constantly bringing up WSC numbers for players you like (the two Richards for example) is so blatantly biased it always makes me chuckle.

In England a strike rate of 58, In India an average of 28 with a strike rate of 61, and that's from '79 to '87.

None of the strike rate figures you've quoted sound problematic considering other top tier quicks have similar numbers in multiple countries.

Hadlee- SR of 59 in England, 60 in Pakistan, 57 in WI
McGrath- 63 in SA, 63 in Pakistan, 64 in SL, 57 in India.

Imran's SR actually seems kinda better considering the pitches he had to play on in 87 in India.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

Yeah, higher SRs in old-er times make sense because batsmen were simply more adept at leaving more and played way more cautiously in general. Even Steyn would've been high 40s at the very least if he'd played pre-90s.

 

[subshakerz]

You probably need to make up your mind on whether you actually count WSC stats or not. With WSC, Imran averages 23 at a SR of 57 in Australia in that period, which is pretty fantastic by any standard. I am completely ok with excluding WSC from his record but you ignoring it for Imran but constantly bringing up WSC numbers for players you like (the two Richards for example) is so blatantly biased it always makes me chuckle.



None of the strike rate figures you've quoted sound problematic considering other top tier quicks have similar numbers in multiple countries.

Hadlee- SR of 59 in England, 60 in Pakistan, 57 in WI
McGrath- 63 in SA, 63 in Pakistan, 64 in SL, 57 in India.

Imran's SR actually seems kinda better considering the pitches he had to play on in 87 in India.

Also note that Kyear doesn't even mention WI, best team of the era, where Imran has a SR of 45.

It's just blatant bias like this that makes his views comical.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Also note that Kyear doesn't even mention WI, best team of the era, where Imran has a SR of 45.

It's just blatant bias like this that makes his views comical.

Wow sr of 45 vs wi imran

 

[subshakerz]

Wow sr of 45 vs wi imran

45 in WI, overall it's 43.

 

[Burgey]

Imran's SR actually seems kinda better considering the pitches he had to play on in 87 in India.

McGrath spent seven years bowling in a batting era so favourable that people on this website talk down everyone who made runs in it. He averaged 21 in that period but doesn’t get a commensurate up tick. If his peak years transcended the 80s and 90s instead of the 2000s, he’d have averaged in the teens.

 

[smash84]

McGrath spent seven years bowling in a batting era so favourable that people on this website talk down everyone who made runs in it. He averaged 21 in that period but doesn’t get a commensurate up tick. If his peak years transcended the 80s and 90s instead of the 2000s, he’d have averaged in the teens.

He did play 7 years in the 90s, which isn't considered batting friendly, and averaged higher than he did in the batting-friendly era.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah because he peaked from the late 90s. For the first two years or so of his career he was in and out. Was really WI 95 when he first made a big mark on a series.
In 93/94 when he daybooed, he and Reiffel tag teamed one spot. The next year in the Ashes he tried to bowl outswing ffs because people told him that’s how you succeed at test level. He bowled so **** in Brisbane he got dropped until the last test. Pretty funny in hindsight.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath spent seven years bowling in a batting era so favourable that people on this website talk down everyone who made runs in it. He averaged 21 in that period but doesn’t get a commensurate up tick. If his peak years transcended the 80s and 90s instead of the 2000s, he’d have averaged in the teens.

Given that he didn't average in the teens in the 90s I don't think so.

The extent to which the batting era argument is used for McGrath is a bit overplayed.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah because he peaked from the late 90s. For the first two years or so of his career he was in and out. Was really WI 95 when he first made a big mark on a series.
In 93/94 when he daybooed, he and Reiffel tag teamed one spot. The next year in the Ashes he tried to bowl outswing ffs because people told him that’s how you succeed at test level. He bowled so **** in Brisbane he got dropped until the last test. Pretty funny in hindsight.

He was consistently worldclass from 95 onwards.

 

[Burgey]

Given that he didn't average in the teens in the 90s I don't think so.

The extent to which the batting era argument is used for McGrath is a bit overplayed.

Bullshit. You’re assuming he just dropped in at the same level as the bowler he peaked as. It’s a stupid presumption.

He basically averaged the same as Hadlee and Marshall while bowling half the time in a tougher era. That halff coincided with his peak. People want to give Imran a couple of extra pint s because muh pitches (never mind muh umpires) but won’t run the same rule over a bloke who excelled on flat decks for over half a decade.

 

[Cipher]

Sorry but there is a huge gulf between Chappell and Hughes that makes this comparison moot. And yeah Chappell makes a massive difference.

No you're just trying to disregard that the other two had higher batting averages/were better players, which called into question your stronger middle order claim. It's just the difference of one elite batsman, not the whole batting line-up. Which means the rest of the batsman/team were just as easy/difficult to get out. I don't think there's anything more to say on this, if you don't agree that's fine.

If your criteria is to just ignore whenever Imran get Gavaskar out for 20 or more, that is awfully convenient since Imran doesn't have WI bowling support and Gavaskar stands a better chance of scoring more until Imran gets him out. Same applies to Amaranth. And it's not like Gavaskar getting out for 35 is a success somehow, and Marshall gets to bowl at him in a 5 test series on helpful WI pitches too. Basic fact is Imran on raw dismissals is comparable with Marshall against him.

Vengsarkar again hardly a big difference.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I counted all of Gavaskar's dismissals for both players. They're getting him out at a similar ratio but don't you think that getting out a batsman early & for not many is a superior result? Which perhaps suggests they were a more threatening bowler?
The thing is though Imran was always the opening bowler, if he hasn't got a wicket in his first spell that means the advantage is now with the batting side. The reason why I put emphasis on scores of 20 or less is because that suggests they most likely got out in that first spell of bowling.

Bowling support is useful for keeping batsman on lower scores yes but this is more about getting them out early doors before they're set and get a big score. Again there's my earlier point that Marshall was competing with other quality bowlers to get him out whereas Imran should have the lions share due to less competition. I think it's impressive he got Gavaskar out only 3 times fewer than Imran from less matches with more competition for wickets. Similar point for Amaranth. Getting a top class bat out at any score is a good thing, I just think getting them out earlier is better.

Given Imran's noticeable difference in his home record vs away matches I'm not sure talking about Marshall's home advantage is a big difference maker but I'll discuss it anyway. Marshall was not opening the bowling in the one series he played against Gavaskar at home, in that series he got out to the opening bowlers 1st spell 3 times & Marshall got him out twice from the other 6 innings he played. The competing bowling attack was so good (Holding, Roberts & Garner) Gavaskar only made one sizeable score that series (147*). So Marshall actually got Gavaskar out 6 times out of 8 in India, Imran for comparison dismissed him there 5 times. So it wasn't really about WI pitches helping Marshall get Gavaskar out.

Not a big difference no, which is why I originally said he was a tad better at getting the best out. But when you put together all these records of being slightly better together: better average, WPM, S/R, lower scores at dismissal, similar or better dismissals per innings (despite competition) it does paint a picture of being better at getting top batsman out.

 

[kyear2]

Beginning to come round to Pollock over Marshall in my AT team tbh. Not sure the overstated bowling difference is worth 10 runs a match. You've got Imran and Hadlee already: why do you need another great pacer? It's similar to how I have Simpson over Barry in my 3rd XI.

 

[kyear2]

Unfortunately, ataraxia, when you created this thread, you never included Pollock as an option. You might have thought that he would automatically be included as he has "Poll" in his name. What you could do is change your Marshall vote to Wasim. As @kyear2 has said, you really shouldn't have three pacers from the same era in your attack, and even though Wasim overlapped Hadlee and Imran, he went on a decade beyond them so you would be getting the requisite era variation unlike with Marshall. Also, with Wasim, you would be getting left-arm variation unlike with Marshall, and as kyear2 has said, with Wasim, you would be getting a fantastic old-ball bowler. Not to mention those vital extra lower-order runs. You might get a bit of a rise out of kyear2 as well which would be an added bonus!

Not a raise at all, when people stoop to pettiness and stupidly I genuinely find it amusing.

 

[Cipher]

Imran wasn't playing as a bowler in two of those games against Border and didn't bowl a single delivery in 84/85.

I already removed those two games hence the brackets (where he bowled).

Sorry but the umpire excuse doesn't work with Miandad since Imran had neutral umpires in home series in 86 and 90 when Marshall played against Miandad.

And no Viv wasn't out of form in 76 he just had an ATG series in England and the fact that Imran dismissed him four times at home in his peak goes to his credit.

That is not quite correct, although I was partially wrong too.
The 1st game of '86 had two Pakistani umpires. The following 2 matches did not.
However the 1990 series did not have neutral umpres at all, you can look the scorecards on cricinfo to prove this.
So including the 80's series (which you left out) 7 out of 9 games he did have home umpires, you cannot rule out that argument.

The gap between that '76 series and the series against Pakistan in early '77 was 6 months, form can absolutely change in that period of time. It wasn't just Imran getting him out either, Nawaz, Mushtaq Mohammed, Raja & Altaf also managed to get him & they aren't the same calibre of bowler that Imran was. The fact he only averaged 28.55 that series/didn't score a century/got out to lower quality bowlers to me suggests he was out of form but yes Imran took 25 wickets that series (albeit at 31.60) so he was taking wickets.

The rest are too slight to make any judgment especially since he has better support and better bowling conditions.

Already talked about support which can cut both ways, but Marshall had a better away record than Imran as well so I don't think you can put it down to better bowling conditions.

Yes I already told you I consider Marshall no.1, though Imran had a better peak. But this 'getting out the best bats' isnt a good argument because as we have seen it is close.