What makes so many people go for a middle ground on batting ability? If you think it's important, Hadlee and Imran (or Wasim). And If not, Mcgrath and Steyn.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best Attack
- Thread starter kyear2
- Start date
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Because you don't want to fill your side with all the bowlers from the same era either. Marshall Hadlee Imran would be an overkill as they all played around the same time and retired pretty much together in 1990/1991.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Some questions I would appreciate posters to answer:
How many successful series in the SC does it take for an ATG to be 'proven' there? Is it ok for Hadlee and Ambrose to be considered all-conditions bowlers based on a single series of success in Ind and Pak, or for McGrath to just succeed in India and not in Pak and SL?
How important is succeeding against the best batting lineup you faced, particularly in their country? Why are McGrath against SA and Hadlee in WI not big deals and they are still considered 'all-conditions' bowlers?
Why is it fair to ignore high bowling averages for ATGs if conditions are flatter in Eng and Aus but then never consider this for the SC? Do we assume that every ATG would have got high averages if they played in the same flat series? Aren't we giving Steyn preferential treatment, otherwise shouldn't we look at every ATG pacer who faced a flat pitch series and allow their high averages a pass?
How many successful series in the SC does it take for an ATG to be 'proven' there? Is it ok for Hadlee and Ambrose to be considered all-conditions bowlers based on a single series of success in Ind and Pak, or for McGrath to just succeed in India and not in Pak and SL?
How important is succeeding against the best batting lineup you faced, particularly in their country? Why are McGrath against SA and Hadlee in WI not big deals and they are still considered 'all-conditions' bowlers?
Why is it fair to ignore high bowling averages for ATGs if conditions are flatter in Eng and Aus but then never consider this for the SC? Do we assume that every ATG would have got high averages if they played in the same flat series? Aren't we giving Steyn preferential treatment, otherwise shouldn't we look at every ATG pacer who faced a flat pitch series and allow their high averages a pass?
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
It has to be at least 2-3 great series in the SC.
A single great series is not enough because we are talking about playing in 2 to 3 countries. If you ignore that you are ignoring a big chunk of the cricketing world. But if it's fine then in that case, we should apply same logic for SC bowlers.
And It's vital to do well against the best team/s of the era. Thats your litmus test.
A single great series is not enough because we are talking about playing in 2 to 3 countries. If you ignore that you are ignoring a big chunk of the cricketing world. But if it's fine then in that case, we should apply same logic for SC bowlers.
And It's vital to do well against the best team/s of the era. Thats your litmus test.
You think Hadlee is the worst of the 3?
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2
International Coach
Kinda think this is actually important, as I mentioned earlier, and serious over kill.
kyear2
International Coach
If you recall, Lillee for quite some time was seen as the best in and the world, and ever, while not playing in the SC, or Caribbean for that matter. It wasn't seen as that important till either recently or we decided it was a litmus test. Even Ambrose, he did well vs England and Australia, and in England and Australia, those were the big names, the big draws, the big tours.
Should also be noted that neither avoided tours, they were legitimately injured or recovering from injury.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
So you'd have all 3 pacers from the exact same period? Well, then it wouldn't be an 'All-Time' XI.
Maybe bowlers had it a little easier back then in the 80s so always good idea to pick at least 1 pacer from another era instead of all three from same timeline especially when ATG bowlers from other eras are of similar quality
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
I go for former. I anyway rate Hadllee the best bowler of the 4 so less of a trade off
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Simple. The best are the best.
If an all-time tennis squad were picked Novak, Rafa, and Fed would be the first 3 names (sorry Laver etc.) despite being from the same era.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
I am assuming they are of similar quality. For eg, McGrath and Steyn are of similar quality to Imran and Hadlee as bowlers.
Your example is not relevant as those 3 are 'clearly' the best 3 of all time in modern tennis.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, but not as cricketers.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Seaming Pitch: McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose
Flat Pitch: Marshall, Steyn, Imran
Flat Pitch: Marshall, Steyn, Imran
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah thats why Imran is probably a must in ATG XIs. Probably the most useful allrounder for an ATG XI. Avging 37 with the bat and 22/23 with the ball fmd.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Sobers is the most useful alltounder.
Post-Gilchrist, Hadlee is more useful than Imran imo.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
I think so as well. He was the better bowler and a good enough batsman, to me that still makes Hadlee the better cricketer in my book.
kyear2
International Coach
Sure I explained this already, but honestly can't remember which thread so I shall repeat.
Unlike Imran Sobers is actually a lock for an AT XI, and likely a unanimous one.
Sobers is more useful than any cricketer ever, but will stick to the context of this team.
As a 5th bowler would be required to get some overs in to assist with the rotation, on a seaming pitch he would be a 4th seamer and in a spinning pitch he could operate as the 3rd seamer and allow for two spinners or alternatively operate as the 2nd spinner and play 3 seamers.
Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee all collected gained a plurality of their wickets caught behind the wicket and benefitted greatly from tremendous slip support the likes of Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Lloyd, Richardson, Kallis, Smith etc and Sobers would fill that crucial 2nd slip role to them and critical 1st slip to Warne.
Each of those are equally crucial as the no. 8 batting role especially in a team with such batting strength.