Best Attack

[smash84]

I see the gang's back together. Just one missing

Dude, that was Bolo pointing out the exact reason you get people to gang up on you.

Never addressing the question or your inconsistent reasoning.

 

[kyear2]

I pretty much look at Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn, Imran, Ambrose and Lillee as all ATGs with roughly the same level of skill. Many of the differences in their records are due to circumstantial factors than ability but given an ATG setting I don't see them producing very different levels of output.

Again, you've said on numerous occasions that Marshall is above the others.

There's also a definite gap after the big three, most in the forum have observed it, but when it's convenient some pretend that they are all interchangeable. They aren't.

Steyn struck at almost 2 overs faster per wicket over the course of a career, and was better with the new ball.

They are all not the same

 

[kyear2]

Hey hey don’t drag me down with you.

But yeah you’re right. Or wrong.

I don’t really care enough about the topic tbh. They’re all great attacks and there probably shouldn’t be this much argument regarding them - you guys have different philosophies. Can you accept that’s ok? Different question entirely.

I posted that a few pages back, that didn't seem to work.

The issue is that there's the pretence that there's a slam dunk preference in one direction, and that there's no argument.

Even the poll above shows that there's a wide variance of opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

Not really sure, probably an extra 20 or so? That's assuming they aren't following each other back into the hut.

How much is 'or so'?

And how much are you assuming Marshall and Warne average with the bat in these ATG games that they constitute 'resistance' as you said?

 

[subshakerz]

I posted that a few pages back, that didn't seem to work.

The problem is you failing to directly address questions, posting long responses and then is getting stuck in tangent and having to repeatedly ask you again to address points.

 

[subshakerz]

There's also a definite gap after the big three, most in the forum have observed it, but when it's convenient some pretend that they are all interchangeable. They aren't.

Not going to produce notable differences in output in ATG scenarios, even with some being better in terms of records.

 

[subshakerz]

So what you're basically telling me is that if you have someone that has the skill and attributes to form the best possible opening partnership, you're going to overlook him because he would bat at 11? Good thing none of you were selectors for Australia.

First off, it is not even crystal clear that McGrath is better than Hadlee as a bowler. I opt for McGrath based on longevity of career sample but in actual game I would be hard pressed to think of an advantage he has over Hadlee.

But selectors will definitely see Hadlee's batting as a great addition. Selectors love dual roles and add ons. Same logic that the best keepers make way for keeper bats.

 

[kyear2]

The problem is you failing to directly address questions, posting long responses and then is getting stuck in tangent and having to repeatedly ask you again to address points.

I answered his question in the next post, and dude, no one can demand anyone answers anything.

 

[subshakerz]

I answered his question in the next post, and dude, no one can demand anyone answers anything.

Then just say you don't wish to answer rather than post long soliloquys without addressing anything.

 

[kyear2]

Not going to produce notable differences in output in ATG scenarios, even with some being better in terms of records.

I've given my reasons based on skills, attributes, and intangibles. It's not just based on numbers. I gave reasons as to why I believe Marshall and McGrath would make a perfect opening combination, why Steyn for me is the ideal 3rd bowler.

The only stat I used was Steyn's strike rate compared to Imran's.

I tried to use nuanced arguments to explain my perspective.

I think in these scenarios, some bowlers are more well suited to succeed and compliment each other.

I don't place the premium, nor hold the perception of consistent lower order contributions.
I also don't begrudge someone who would think that a strong no. 8 is valuable, but from the time when we're selecting all of the bowlers purely on batting, that's a bridge too far.

Not to add that chosing three bowlers from not only the same era, but a bowling friendly one, is like selecting your middle order from the 30's. Especially when you have McGrath who transitioned seamlessly to and through the dead pitch era.

 

[kyear2]

Then just say you don't wish to answer rather than post long soliloquys without addressing anything.

Why, just following your lead.

Plus, unlike as you're prone to, I did answer.

 

[kyear2]

What I do find hilarious, disingenuous and hypocritical though is the difference between how you view this argument compared to your constant critiques of BCL.

There's no difference between the top 8 bowlers here, something you don't even believe.

But a clear and distinct difference, which you don't miss a chance to try to highlight, between Sachin and Lara.

Now you would say it's fair critique, but somehow that's not allowed for the bowlers. No difference whatsoever for one, but you don't miss an opportunity to highlight the differences for the other.

Lara's away record is disqualifying, yet that doesn't count for others.

 

[subshakerz]

What I do find hilarious, disingenuous and hypocritical though is the difference between how you view this argument compared to your constant critiques of BCL.

There's no difference between the top 8 bowlers here, something you don't even believe.

But a clear and distinct difference, which you don't miss a chance to try to highlight, between Sachin and Lara.

Now you would say it's fair critique, but somehow that's not allowed for the bowlers. No difference whatsoever for one, but you don't miss an opportunity to highlight the differences for the other.

Lara's away record is disqualifying, yet that doesn't count for others.

Once again you skip the entire point.

I never said there is no difference between the top 8 pacers but in terms of an ATG game, the difference in output I imagine would be slight. So Marshall would only be slightly better than Imran or Ambrose at best. Though it may turn out that bowlers we didn't rate as high would end up being much better in such games. They are all hunting in packs, less pressure, etc.

If Lara's away record is 'disqualifying', it is only to be bunched in the select group of best after Bradman, yet I literally out him next after that group at the same position you do.

Another good red herring.

I've given my reasons based on skills, attributes, and intangibles. It's not just based on numbers. I gave reasons as to why I believe Marshall and McGrath would make a perfect opening combination, why Steyn for me is the ideal 3rd bowler.

Actually you said Steyn was a better new ball bowler than Imran, which is irrelevant if he is a 3rd seamer coming after McGrath and Marshall.

Having a better SR/higher ER actually backfires against Steyn as third seamer once he comes in with the shine off the new ball, is spanked around and releases all pressure. Imran, who is better anyways at reverse, was a lot tighter and a more ideal 3rd seamer in this respect. Add his batting and his case should be a near certainty.

 

[subshakerz]

The heart of the question is what do you think the average run contribution would be for a tail of Marshall, Warne, Steyn and McGrath

Even one of Imran and Hadlee are more capable of sticking around and helping the other bats like Gilly and Sobers smack around the bowling for some late runs. Or batting out a draw.

@kyear2

Just to clarify, I can buy you not selecting Imran for Steyn. But I can't buy you not selecting Hadlee for McGrath then. An ATG XI deserves a strong tail and either Imran or Hadlee should be there or both.

 

[kyear2]

Once again you skip the entire point.

I never said there is no difference between the top 8 pacers but in terms of an ATG game, the difference in output I imagine would be slight. So Marshall would only be slightly better than Imran or Ambrose at best. Though it may turn out that bowlers we didn't rate as high would end up being much better in such games. They are all hunting in packs, less pressure, etc.

If Lara's away record is 'disqualifying', it is only to be bunched in the select group of best after Bradman, yet I literally out him next after that group at the same position you do.

Another good red herring.


Actually you said Steyn was a better new ball bowler than Imran, which is irrelevant if he is a 3rd seamer coming after McGrath and Marshall.

Having a better SR/higher ER actually backfires against Steyn as third seamer once he comes in with the shine off the new ball, is spanked around and releases all pressure. Imran, who is better anyways at reverse, was a lot tighter and a more ideal 3rd seamer in this respect. Add his batting and his case should be a near certainty.

Want to answer point by point.

If there's a difference, it's amplified as you go higher, not nullified. Thought that was obvious.

Yes, and similarly if I deem a certain bowler's away record to be disqualifying, it's just to be included in that top tier. I literally have him squarely at the top of the next one.

How was it a red herring, I made an observation, wasn't in reply to anything.

What I said about Steyn was that he was a master of conventional and reverse swing, hence he would be a threat whenever he comes on. First change can come on as early as the 10th over, earlier if circumstances dictate.

His strike rate wasn't a detriment because he was taking wickets, he was always on the attack. Imran's away s/r I'm comparison was practically 60.

That's the part that bothers, you believe he should be a lock, but even in this poll, 66% don't believe he is. Hadlee was a better bowler who could also bat and Steyn was just seen as the better bowler.

I'm not saying he isn't a viable option, I'm saying not everyone sees the game the same way you do, nor as I do. You seem to insist that your way is the only way.

 

[kyear2]

The heart of the question is what do you think the average run contribution would be for a tail of Marshall, Warne, Steyn and McGrath

Even one of Imran and Hadlee are more capable of sticking around and helping the other bats like Gilly and Sobers smack around the bowling for some late runs. Or batting out a draw.

@kyear2

Just to clarify, I can buy you not selecting Imran for Steyn. But I can't buy you not selecting Hadlee for McGrath then. An ATG XI deserves a strong tail and either Imran or Hadlee should be there or both.

I'm getting tired and just watched an amazing game 3, where the Celtics tired to give me heart failure, but one last response.

How much do you think the run contribution was for Marshall, Garner, Holding and Walsh? Lee, Warne, Gillespie, McGrath?

This is just a philosophical difference. In my humble opinion, over the history of the game you took the bowlers who gave you the best chances to bowl out the opposition for as little as possible, as quickly as possible.

Again, as I've repeatedly said, similarly to the slip catching arguments, your view of the game is framed by what you grew up watching and how your, and the best teams around actually won. Us, Australia and then SA all won the same way, none of which featured the stats fuelled "bat deep" craze.
So dispute the push back everything I brought it up, slip fielding played a far greater role on the dominance of all 3 referenced teams that batting deep ever did.

Back to your post, yes either of Imran and Hadlee were capable of sticking around, they were equally capable in this type of contest of being dismissed for next to nothing. Please stop pretending that you can expect consistent performances from these guys. For all the hoopla Marshall likely had as much match winning big scores that Imran had. I'm not saying Imran wasn't the better batsman, but it's not something I'm relying or banking on for victory.

Well I'm sure most would agree with you that at least one should make it, not at expense of Pigeon though. At least not from every AT XI we've chosen or even this poll. It seems most will go with Maco and Pidge and the other spot between Imran, Hadlee, Wasim or Steyn. But yes, some would prefer a strong no. 8

With regards to deserving a strong tail, I believe it deserves a strong cordon, some, such as yourself disagree. Everyone sees it differently, and at this point could very well be a cultural thing.

But 2 final points, no, I would never chose Marshall, Hadlee and Imran, makes no sense with the 3rd best bowler from a bowling era over the best from a batting one.
And the same way I wouldn't choose Walter over Sachin despite bringing infinitely more value over all, not bringing in a lesser bowler, because at the end of the day that's their primary job. Hadlee, as I've discussed more than enough, is a different case.

 

[subshakerz]

Want to answer point by point.

If there's a difference, it's amplified as you go higher, not nullified. Thought that was obvious.

By that stroke, shouldn't the batting difference between Marshall/Warne and Imran/Hadlee be amplified? The former becoming bunnys basically.

But again, realise for our rankings we are judging them based on overall careers, for an ATG game based on skills with record as an indicator, but it's not like the differential will be as pinpoint. Do you understand that point?

Yes, and similarly if I deem a certain bowler's away record to be disqualifying, it's just to be included in that top tier. I literally have him squarely at the top of the next one.

I don't think we really disagree on Lara honestly.

What I said about Steyn was that he was a master of conventional and reverse swing, hence he would be a threat whenever he comes on. First change can come on as early as the 10th over, earlier if circumstances dictate.

I imagine long opening spells from Marshall and McGrath against Hutton etc. on many occasions if they are building pressure against top bats, but regardless we can't escape Steyn losing his sting as a 3rd seamer. At least admit there is a slight tradeoff.

His strike rate wasn't a detriment because he was taking wickets, he was always on the attack. Imran's away s/r I'm comparison was practically 60.

Steyn's SR was based on looping outswingers with the new ball, and then snake swing with the reverse. Without the same degree of red cherry swing, he becomes more hittable. In fact that exactly what he was in those in between overs before the ball was old if you ever saw him. I am just saying he isn't an ideal 3rd seamer when so much of his game is built on tearing in with a new ball.

That's the part that bothers, you believe he should be a lock, but even in this poll, 66% don't believe he is. Hadlee was a better bowler who could also bat and Steyn was just seen as the better bowler.

You are misreading your own poll. The vast majority voted for an option with a number 8 with batting ability, either Imran or Hadlee or Wasim. The weak tail option of your is the minority.

If you selected Hadlee instead of McGrath, like I said, I think you could theoretically justify not including Imran.

 

[peterhrt]

In my humble opinion, over the history of the game you took the bowlers who gave you the best chances to bowl out the opposition for as little as possible, as quickly as possible.

That was often the case in the past. Certain bowlers were actively discouraged from taking their batting seriously or exerting themselves in the field.

Wilfred Rhodes could hold a bat even when he was number eleven. Early in his career he came in to tea twenty-odd not out. Lord Hawke cornered him with the strict instruction: “Not too many more please Wilfred”, effectively telling him to get out. Hawke knew that more batting would adversely affect Rhodes' bowling and was eventually proved right.

Sydney Barnes usually appeared at number ten or eleven in Test cricket. He recorded at least a dozen hundreds in league and cup matches and could easily have contributed more with the bat at a higher level. But nobody wanted him to – apart from Rhodes who argued that his batting was being wasted. Barnes' lazy, almost petulant, habit of sticking a boot out in the field was not only tolerated but almost encouraged.

Exhausted after making 257* against Zimbabwe, Wasim Akram found he could hardly run up to bowl. There and then he decided he would not, and could not, become a regular all-rounder.

 

[subshakerz]

Exhausted after making 257* against Zimbabwe, Wasim Akram found he could hardly run up to bowl. There and then he decided he would not, and could not, become a regular all-rounder.

Lol it didn't happen that way.

 

[kyear2]

By that stroke, shouldn't the batting difference between Marshall/Warne and Imran/Hadlee be amplified? The former becoming bunnys basically.

But again, realise for our rankings we are judging them based on overall careers, for an ATG game based on skills with record as an indicator, but it's not like the differential will be as pinpoint. Do you understand that point?


I don't think we really disagree on Lara honestly.



I imagine long opening spells from Marshall and McGrath against Hutton etc. on many occasions if they are building pressure against top bats, but regardless we can't escape Steyn losing his sting as a 3rd seamer. At least admit there is a slight tradeoff.



Steyn's SR was based on looping outswingers with the new ball, and then snake swing with the reverse. Without the same degree of red cherry swing, he becomes more hittable. In fact that exactly what he was in those in between overs before the ball was old if you ever saw him. I am just saying he isn't an ideal 3rd seamer when so much of his game is built on tearing in with a new ball.


You are misreading your own poll. The vast majority voted for an option with a number 8 with batting ability, either Imran or Hadlee or Wasim. The weak tail option of your is the minority.

If you selected Hadlee instead of McGrath, like I said, I think you could theoretically justify not including Imran.

Do you understand that I'm not basing this on ranking but by specific skill sets, traits, compatibility and who I believe would do better is all types of conditions?

That paragraph wasn't about Lara,.read it again.

I can't answer that without starting ****, so I'll leave it alone.

I didn't mis read the poll, and I addressed that in the next post. Yes, a plurality agree that a strong no. 8 is a must (either that or just because Hadlee was just a better better than Steyn and Imran and the batting is coincidental)
The lowest option isn't mine, it's the McGrath less one, where he's replaced by Hadlee you propose to be the viable alternative.

I believe for most that Marshall and McGrath are licks at the top and just wildly disagree and what's the best option for the 3rd.

At the end of the day you can't be choosing your opening bowlers based on batting, it's too important a role. After that, preferences vary.