It's not a hairs breadth difference between Marshall and Hadlee as bowlers. This is where CW consensus is just wrong. Marshall is notably just better across conditions than Hadlee is. Not saying Marshall is a tier ahead but as much ahead as McGrath/Hadlee are from Steyn and the rest. Enough to make meaningful difference on game outcomes, not just first among equals.
@kyear2 do you agree?
I don't think he's in a different tier, but do believe he's clearly ahead and it's not a hairs width. I have McGrath and Hadlee much closer together but with McGrath clearly ahead as well.
The higher the hypothetical level the more these differences matter (as referenced by someone earlier) and honestly the 3rd name I'll select in an AT team or ranking would be the one I believe is the best bowler ever, why is that controversial.
We have got to such a point with over rating all rounders and the impact the batting has that some like
@shortpitched713 thinks Pollock is the 3rd or 4th best player ever, any by this add everything together logic, he might be, and we all know he isn't.
We have two main disciplines, batting and bowling and somehow unless you can double on your contemporaries, our ranking system has turned into an all rounder list.
And it's not even about impact, how many games have you won with your batting, how critical was it, would it be to your team's success.
I've often disagreed with the members of the forum, you included, about the impact of various disciplines. I've watched countless matches when a slip cordon's support of the bowlers were critical to victories, I would argue as much if nor much more than Pollock's or Hadlle's big innings contributed to wins. Yet, do we factor that to Kallis's, Ponting's, Hammond's ratings? Chappell, Smith, Lara? So it's not about impact or contributing to wins, it's about numbers added to each other.
We wouldn't have been the dominating unit we were without our cordon, we managed though to make so without a bowling allrounder, same exact scenario with the dominating Australian unit. And please don't say they would have helped, of course they may have, but it wasn't critical.
Varied off track a bit, but there's a disconnect and we have for to the point where we generally over rate bowling all-rounders and definely the impact.
I love Hadlee, I have him either 5th or 6th all time (behind Hobbs as well), and that also alternates with McGrath, who despite being a rabbit, I believe also had that little something extra and .... tbh (admittedly)a bit unfair (along with Maco) led two teams to being the best ever.
In summary, who would have the biggest impact on my team to play every and anywhere, the guys who I want more than anyone else who would lead me to victory. The Don, Sir Garry and Maco.
And note, I'm not trying to conceive anyone, I'm just explaing my position.