Glenn McGrath vs Shaun Pollock

[Bolo.]

If you pick an ATG XI, wouldn't your specialists be so good that the need for an all-rounder to balance the side is diminished? So hypothetically I might pick Kallis as a batter in an ATG XI but wouldn't want him to bowl, or hypothetically pick Pollock as a bowler but not be expecting to rely on his runs at 8.

An ATG side is usually being picked to theoretically play teams of similar strength. Pollocks batting would be about as useful in an ATG matchup as in a regular one- he would score less against ATG bolwers, but so would everyone.

Kallis is an average bowler. Very useful in a weaker attack, but a really weak point in an ATG one. A 5th bowler is always going to be handy to make the rest of the attack better, but his value will be down.

I dont think looking at how a player would perform in an ATG team is a good way of assessing their quality though. How they did in their own team, or how they would do in a median strength team both make more sense to me.

 

[Ali TT]

An ATG side is usually being picked to theoretically play teams of similar strength. Pollocks batting would be about as useful in an ATG matchup as in a regular one- he would score less against ATG bolwers, but so would everyone.

Kallis is an average bowler. Very useful in a weaker attack, but a really weak point in an ATG one. A 5th bowler is always going to be handy to make the rest of the attack better, but his value will be down.

I dont think looking at how a player would perform in an ATG team is a good way of assessing their quality though. How they did in their own team, or how they would do in a median strength team both make more sense to me.

Possibly, but my instinct when comparing players is whether I would pick them in that I consider an ATG XI or a team of the best I've seen. On that basis, I'd be far more likely to prefer McGrath than Pollock.

 

[subshakerz]

If Pollock was a genuine bat around Botham or even Imran level, then I think ranking him ahead of McGrath makes sense.

For Kallis, if his bowling was Sobers level then ranking him ahead of Tendulkar makes sense.

 

[slippy888]

For me McGrath best bowling was during the ashes in England during 1997 when he actually looked and bowled like a genuine fast bowler and not a medium fast bowler like he done at the end of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

For me McGrath best bowling was during the ashes in England during 1997 when he actually looked and bowled like a genuine fast bowler and not a medium fast bowler like he done at the end of his career.

I think his bowling in the WI in 99 was even better, he had that extra yard of pace then.

 

[Bolo.]

Possibly, but my instinct when comparing players is whether I would pick them in that I consider an ATG XI or a team of the best I've seen. On that basis, I'd be far more likely to prefer McGrath than Pollock.

Eh, I think real world examples are a better way to judge than a hypothetical that will never exist. If this is the case, the one you pick just depends on how the rest of your team is composed. Neither of them make an ATG side for me anyway, and I can't pick either of them as better amongst players I've watched, so your criteria leave me going back to mine even if I agreed with them.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Neither of them make an ATG side for me anyway

Really? No McGrath?
Do you go Marshall, Hadlee/Imran, Ambrose, Warne/Murali, Sobers for an ATG side attack?

 

[Bolo.]

Really? No McGrath?
Do you go Marshall, Hadlee/Imran, Ambrose, Warne/Murali, Sobers for an ATG side attack?

Marshall, Hadlee, spinner, Sobers, a quality reverse bowler (probably Imran, maybe Steyn or Wasim). There's only room for one RA channel bowler unless you want to sacrifice variety without a quality increase (bearing in mind batting), which just makes for a worse side. Hadlee comfortably takes this slot ahead of Mcgrath/Pollock/Ambrose.

If there was no Hadlee, Mcgrath might get in and Pollock wouldn't. But if there was no Sobers/Kallis, Pollock might get in and Mcgrath wouldn't (5 bowlers).

 

[Prince EWS]

Marshall, Hadlee, spinner, Sobers, a quality reverse bowler (probably Imran, maybe Steyn or Wasim). There's only room for one RA channel bowler unless you want to sacrifice variety without a quality increase (bearing in mind batting), which just makes for a worse side. Hadlee comfortably takes this slot ahead of Mcgrath/Pollock/Ambrose.

Seriously gun lower order.

7 Gilchrist
8 Imran
9 Hadlee
10 Marshall

Warne at 11 if he plays, lol.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Marshall, Hadlee, spinner, Sobers, a quality reverse bowler (probably Imran, maybe Steyn or Wasim). There's only room for one RA channel bowler unless you want to sacrifice variety without a quality increase (bearing in mind batting), which just makes for a worse side. Hadlee comfortably takes this slot ahead of Mcgrath/Pollock/Ambrose.

If there was no Hadlee, Mcgrath might get in and Pollock wouldn't. But if there was no Sobers/Kallis, Pollock might get in and Mcgrath wouldn't (5 bowlers).

S.F Barnes?

 

[Bolo.]

S.F Barnes?

Too hard to assess him. Easier to go for the known (and add a bit to the batting as a bonus).

 

[_00_deathscar]

Picking Pollock over McGrath is pretty mental. Nowhere near the bowler at all, despite being a good one himself. The batting doesn’t make up for it.

 

[Ali TT]

Eh, I think real world examples are a better way to judge than a hypothetical that will never exist. If this is the case, the one you pick just depends on how the rest of your team is composed. Neither of them make an ATG side for me anyway, and I can't pick either of them as better amongst players I've watched, so your criteria leave me going back to mine even if I agreed with them.

Maybe my memory doesn't stretch as far back as yours. I'd pick McGrath, Ambrose and probably Wasim, although a close choice with the Steyn, with Warne the spinner.

A second side attack for me would probably be the other of Steyn/Wasim, Donald, Waqar, Murali.

Then Anderson, Pollock, Cummins/Gillespie, Swann/Ashwin.

All personal choice though.