Which batsmen were most successful against Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath?

[DrWolverine]

I have a clearer hierarchy of criteria to justify my bowling list which incorporates different measures.

- Overall wickettaking capacity
- Success across conditions
- Success against the best
- Peer rating
- Longevity of world-class form

Everything else is objective
Peer rating is not

 

[subshakerz]

Everything else is objective
Peer rating is not

Someone being rated higher by peers is an objective fact, their individual judgment are subjective

 

[DrWolverine]

Someone being rated higher by peers is an objective fact, their individual judgment are subjective

You know that’s what I meant

 

[shortpitched713]

Is that the same Wisden that rated Murali and Hadlee the no 1 & 2 bowlers of all time?

Warne and Marshall for their batting.

#Garnerforhisbatting

 

[kyear2]

Always love some good irony

Yet you can't put it through your thick skull most here rate Imran higher than Wasim as a bowler as well as old ball bowler. What a shocker!!

Inherently not what you say. You have said, on multiple occasions, that you pick the 4 best bowlers. You have done so when @subshakerz got Imran in for old ball bowling.
Here, its hardly what I am, but what you are. And that's a hypocrite.

He again, isn't even the best Old ball bowler. And acting as if a batsman averaging at 8, 37 and one 22 is the very same, and shan't play any role, is PEAK stupidity and frankly, a product of an agenda. Like when you said a batting Allrounder is a must in all the teams, and say bowling isn't for AUS 2000 and WI 80 didn't had one, completely ignoring that they didn't a batting one too. It's not the selection which stinks, it's the sheer boundless hypocrisy.

Yes quite a few here do rate Immy as the better bowler, what you don't seem to be able to get through your even thicker skull is that Wasim is rated much higher outside of CW, espcially by those who played or watched both. Significantly higher.

With regards to who is rated as better with the old ball here on CW... well.


And as usual you're lying, I have long advocated for the best attack, that doesn't always mean the best 4 bowlers, because again one might prefer an old ball specialist.
What you're deliberately mis-conflating is my stance of not selecting a bowling attack based on batting average with what is the best attack.

And even when a poll was conducted about what would be the best attack, inclusive of batting and any other factors.. even then Imran barely eclipsed Wasim.



And of course just this week when discussing Wasim and Imran, the posters here who actually watched both, all came down on the side of Wasim. Most did call Imran the better cricketer, Wasim the better bowler. A sentiment echoed by multiple pundits.

Stop pretending like this is some isolated crazy opinion that I've created in my head. Wasim literally made the cricinfo and Wisden XI's, not one, but both. You yourself voted Wasim as the best old ball bowler of all time.

You're just successfully trying to be a dick right now.

Now, I want to very specifically address the last highlighted paragraph because this is where the ultimate echo chamber that you and your little group have created is most misleading.

As the poll I listed above, not everyone on CW far, and I mean far less outside of CW believes that batting should factor into a bowling attack. I would say that this is a CW creation, but it's now even really CW as much as a loud minority faction within CW.

Mark Nicholas and Jarod Kimber are both massive fans of Imran, I know this because I've read articles from Nicholas extolling his virtues and singing his praises and Kimber has named him the 3rd greatest player ever. Both of them have names all time XIs and neither chose Imran nor anyone appraching a bowling all rounder in their XIs.

So is it peak stupidity or is it that you're so full orlf tour damn self.and arrogant that you can't see any other perspective?

Or is everyone in on the conspiracy? Or is it that lower order batring isn't viewed by the larger cricketing fraternity that you or some of your friends believe?

Now let me be very clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with selecting Imran in an AT team, but to think that it's peak stupidity to select anyone else but him is not only peak arrogance but a level of closed mindedness and a level of myopic thinking that's staggering.

Mark Nicholas goes with Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose and Warne, Kimber selects Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah and Warne, Crowe goes with Marshall, Lillee, Wasim and Warne, Wisden with with Marshall, Lillee, Wasim and Warne, cricinfo Marshall, Lillee, Wasim and Warne, and my amalgamation squad was Marshall, Barnes, Wasim and Warne.

I've read Greg Chappell clealy state that batting shouldn't be a factor when selecting a bowling attack.

So are all of these people examples of peak stupidity and part of an agenda? Or is it that they don't know that Imran averaged 37, Akram only 22, Steyn 13 or Bumrah 8?
Do they all hate Imran, wait, no because I've already referenced Kimber and Nicholas's writings. Imran is clearly acknowledged as rhe 2nd best all rounder, at worst top 3 to 5.

Why is it that you can't acknowledge that your views are as universally accepted as you want to believe? It's not the standard you want to believe, **** Imran didn't even make CWs XI.

So could it pissibly be you with the agenda or exhibiting and I quote, peak stupidity?

 

[kyear2]

We aren't talking about ATG XIs tho I know you like to switch.

We actually were.

 

[kyear2]

Holding admitted to it. It's not my fault that ball tampering wasn't a serious debate or even much of an offense until after Marshall had retired, people pulled the seam and scratched the ball as they liked, some got away without questions like Hadlee and Marshall, and some were questioned like Imran.

Jesus christ.

So you're literally making **** up.

First off, if Holding admitted to it, what the hell does that have to do with Marshall

Second, where did Holding admit to it?

Third, yes ball tampering was a thing and it was discussed during the 80's and it was always a talking point in Imran's career. Scyld Berry wheb he was ranking Imran literally mentioned it, the article that someone posted a couple days ago praising Imran, more than hinted at it. It was an open discussion in the caribbean, that and the umpiring over there specially Imran and Javed and his LBWs.

But I was reading this cricinfo article about Marshall the other day, written by a Pakistani writer BTW, said this about Marshall.



With the way he and the team was the focus of additional and often unwarranted scrutiny by the British press, they couldn't be caught doing anything wrong.

But to be clear, it's pathetic to tarnish a man's name with 0 evidence or even innuendo just to make a point on a cricket forum.

To cover your guy you make up **** about another one. That's sincerely pathetic on a deep level, but it jives with your recent behavior, so have at it.

 

[kyear2]

They provide opinions of some “experts”

But there is no objective ATG XI

An ATG XI is inherently subjective

Love how "experts" are now in quotation marks.

8 former test captains and 4 journalists if I recall correctly.

When the NFL releases an AT team, that's pretty much official, the AP releases an all pro team every year that's seen as the standard and becomes part of the players resume. As Wisden does from time to time.

Wisden is the "cricket bible", Crifinfo the sports largest and most respected media house. The Wisden 5 cricketers of the century are the cricketers of the century.

Those two are the standard.

 

[kyear2]

Believe me Wasim was incomparable with the old ball!
Great bowler though Imran was and,in my view,on a par with his younger teammate overall,I've never watched anyone do more with an old ball,by way of reverse swing,than Wasim the Wizard.
From your request for "evidence" I can only assume that,like me,you watched them both bowl a lot but have come to a different conclusion---please confirm.

Of course he didn't. I only saw Imran in the caribbean in the 89 series and none of them clamoring aloud never saw him at all. Some of those arguing the loudest are barely out of their teenaged years.

 

[kyear2]

This is just a fancy, long winded way of saying you do a gut check to base your rankings on.

Let's look at your rankings for a second:

Marshall
McGrath

Warne
Ambrose
Steyn
Muralitharan
Hadlee
O'Reilly

Lillee

Wasim, Bumrah, Holding, Imran, Donald, Lindwall, Trueman


So let's say peer and pundit rating is an important criteria for you. How can you justify Hadlee over Lillee then? No peer we know who faced both of them rated Hadlee as better. Lillee is miles ahead in peer rating. The only logical conclusion is that you think Hadlee has a clear edge in record. But then you have Ambrose over Hadlee based on what? Record? Come on now.

And then how can you rate Wasim over Imran? Suddenly you talk about the importance of peer rating. You don't mention record at all except to talk about Imran and ball tampering, despite far more evidence of Wasim having tampered on camera and as per player accounts.

Conclusion: You have no clear criteria and you are subjecting posters here to sanctimonious lectures about not respecting cricketers or peer opinion while clearly picking and choosing you you want to benefit from it.

I know you have a point to prove, I also note thay I'm the only one who's every ranking is scrutinized, even though there's some wild ass teams and rankings floating around. But I'll entertain.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but having one valuation being importsnt doesnt mean it's the only importsnt one. It's literally a combination of several factors.

I've also said repeatedly that I don't know where to rate Lillee, that's genuinely the case.

Ambrose being above Hadlee, again is only controversial on CW, it's pretty standard outside of these servers. What Ambrose did to the best team in the World at their place is unmatched by Hadlee.
As Ive said, Ambrose at his best for me is better than McGrath at his best, but I have to factor in both halves of his career, so can't justify him on the GOAT tier. There's nothing to explain abiut placing Ambrose that high.

You keep focusing on ball tampering like that was the only issue with Imran's record, specifically his home one.

My argument to you re Imran and Wasim is that drop both into any team right now, both healthy, I think Wasim does better. He has more tools, can more consistently attack the outside edge and had more tools, specifically with the old ball.

That's it. Nothing about tampering, no punishment, thats it. He could move new and old ball alive like no one else.

You don't have to understand or even respect my selctions. I read, I rewatch, i talk to.former cricketers I have access to. I watch, read and listen, and try to align that to the stas and what I see.

I don't care if you agree.

And the worst part is all of this for you and the rest of your little group is about one single player. Jane, Burgey and others in this thread all said why they think Wasim is better, you nor the croneys went after any of them, it's just me.

Cause as the old people here say, Monkey know who to frighten.

Get over yourself.

 

[kyear2]

Imran was notably tighter than Wasim with the new ball, who was known to provide the occasional boundary delivery.

And Imran made up with less old ball tricks than Waism with pure brutal efficiency, he swung it in even more than Wasim did.

Just some of your own words re Wasim... note the highlighted portions. I can privide more if you wish.

You would also note later in the thread I asking why I'm wrong abiut Wasim and if his issues were suffcient to make up fpr the numbers deficit.

First off, Wasim pace wise was around Steyn level, usually 85 but can crank it to 90mph when needed. In fact, he was outright fast in the early 90s, late 80s.

And I don't know what you are on about. I have literally seen dozens of Wasim's reverse spells live and bowling short was never an issue, he was far more accurate than Waqar who would spray it around and generally pitched it up.

If you mean towards the end of his career, Wasim yes did bowl back of a length in reverse at times which batsmen just played and missed but he combined that with pitching it up as well.

Wasim for much of the 90s was literally the best I have seen at late movement with the old ball. In the death overs of ODIs he couldn't be knocked around. Good or set batsmen could still block or blast out Steyn and Waqar when they were reversing it because they knew where it was swinging. You couldn't do that with Wasim since he was swinging it both ways.

Wasim also used the crease with reverse far more effectively than Waqar, he could york it from around the wicket or over, or from around the wicket late swing it away for an edge.

The top are Wasim, Waqar, Steyn and Imran.

Here is how their reverses are different:

Steyn has snake balls. His releases it with a twist of his wrist, starting outside off and then deviates mid pitch to come in. The reason it is so effective is his stock ball goes the other direction, so batsmen are stuck mid crease getting bowled or lbw.

Waqar has curve balls. Like Steyn, except fuller, faster and with more inswing.

Imran had boom swing. Starting as inswingers, often wide of the crease, and then tailing in late, perhaps the most deviation from release of them all.

Wasim was the ultimate reverse master. His trademark was little change 3/4th down the pitch before sharp late swing to bamboozle.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

Wasim wins by virtue of accuracy and being able to reverse both ways.

 

[kyear2]

Difference between me and you is I have a clearer hierarchy of criteria to justify my bowling list which incorporates different measures.

- Overall wickettaking capacity
- Success across conditions
- Success against the best
- Peer rating
- Longevity of world-class form

Yours is a hodgepodge approach.

For cricketers in general.

Record home and away

Impact and impact vs the best of era

Peer ratings

 

[kyear2]

I understand. I make a distinction between bowlers I enjoy and those I rate.

Wasim is my favorite bowler of all time. I just think Imran was objectively better.

Imran is not objectively better. And anyone who went alone with that statement is an idiot or a liar. Not withstanding that almost if not all of those who saw both their careers on this site alone, rate Wasim higher, but they existed in different realities.

But you and your nonsense aside, Wasim had to deal with considerably more adversary that impacted his bolwing career than Imran, the diabetes and far more importantly, arguably the worst cordon ever.

Was going to post more, but will leave that for another thread.

 

[kyear2]

You're correct. I would justify Imran as a bowler based on his reverse skills in an ATG XI, and Kyear would rebut me talking about Imrans bowler ranking.

Now he has completely reversed himself on Wasim.

Yes, bevause Steyn is at least just as good eith the old ball, I would argue better and also overall the better bowler as well.

You're being disingenuous again.

 

[kyear2]

Absolutely agree shortpitched713.
As I've said before on this forum,I believe that,for 3 or 4 years,Waqar reached a phenomenal peak.Watching him in the early nineties with the old ball,long powerful run-up,full delivery at well over 90 mph and that devastating,very late,in-swing,was,for me,the most thrilling fast bowling I'd seen since Jeff Thomson.
Waqar's strike-rate was phenomenal.
It could be said that,historically,Waqar to Wasim was the equivalent of Thommo to Lillee.

In the ver late 80's to early '90's the phenomenons, the young guns who burst onto the scene were Bishop and Waqar, year Ambrose was better, but they were fast as hell and wrecked hell for a few years before the injuries hit both.

 

[Johan]

Jesus christ.

So you're literally making **** up.

First off, if Holding admitted to it, what the hell does that have to do with Marshall

Second, where did Holding admit to it?

Third, yes ball tampering was a thing and it was discussed during the 80's and it was always a talking point in Imran's career. Scyld Berry wheb he was ranking Imran literally mentioned it, the article that someone posted a couple days ago praising Imran, more than hinted at it. It was an open discussion in the caribbean, that and the umpiring over there specially Imran and Javed and his LBWs.

But I was reading this cricinfo article about Marshall the other day, written by a Pakistani writer BTW, said this about Marshall.

View attachment 55336

With the way he and the team was the focus of additional and often unwarranted scrutiny by the British press, they couldn't be caught doing anything wrong.

But to be clear, it's pathetic to tarnish a man's name with 0 evidence or even innuendo just to make a point on a cricket forum.

To cover your guy you make up **** about another one. That's sincerely pathetic on a deep level, but it jives with your recent behavior, so have at it.

As always, you're overly emotional when it comes to Marshall. Here is his partner.

Ofcourse there is no controversy, what controversy would there even be?

Every team was doing seam lifting and some form of tampering in the 80s, including both Pakistan and the West Indies, in your fantasy la la land maybe West Indies never did it while every other team in existence did, but I'm not that idealistic.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, bevause Steyn is at least just as good eith the old ball, I would argue better and also overall the better bowler as well.

You're being disingenuous again.

Yeah but I don't believe Steyn is. The point is you argued bowler ranking for Imran, not reverse skills.

But you switched for Wasim.

 

[DrWolverine]

The Wisden 5 cricketers of the century are the cricketers of the century.

No. It isn’t.

 

[subshakerz]

View attachment 55337

Imran is not objectively better. And anyone who went alone with that statement is an idiot or a liar. Not withstanding that almost if not all of those who saw both their careers on this site alone, rate Wasim higher, but they existed in different realities.

But you and your nonsense aside, Wasim had to deal with considerably more adversary that impacted his bolwing career than Imran, the diabetes and far more importantly, arguably the worst cordon ever.

Was going to post more, but will leave that for another thread.

Imran achieved more and has a better record, despite being mainly a bat for some of his career. Those are the facts and data.

Imran didn't have some magically better cordon. He also didn't have a mentor to teach him everything like Wasim did.

 

[subshakerz]

Live how "experts" are now in quotation marks.

8 former test captains and 4 journalists if I recall correctly.

When the NFL releases an AT team, that's pretty much official, the AP releases an all pro team every year that's seen as the standard and becomes part of the players resume. As Wisden does from time to time.

Wisden is the "cricket bible", Crifinfo the sports largest and most respected media house. The Wisden 5 cricketers of the century are the cricketers of the century.

Those two are the standard.

Reminder that the Cricinfo XI voted Lillee over Marshall and Wisden list had Marshall at 26.