Best Attack

[smash84]

Sell me the case that Imran is the best or greatest bowler ever.

Lol, you can't even be sold that case that Imran is the 20th best bowler, let alone top 5, or the greatest ever. Let me remind you of your rankings.

The first 3 are top tier. The next 3-4 are a very slight tier below. Then comes a HUGE gap with Imran coming in at number 8. And then the next 50 follow him with no drop in quality (which means pick whomever you like).

 

[subshakerz]

Just want to point out the highlighted point.

Yes, a line up of Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, McGrath is probably the best one and hits all the requirements.

Steyn though.....

Dude who are you trying to fool.

Most of us already prefer variety as a standard in our ATG attack and would opt for one of Wasim/Steyn/Imran rather than have both Hadlee or McGrath who are both superior. Look at your own poll.

This isn't some grand concession.

 

[subshakerz]

Lol, you can't even be sold that case that Imran is the 20th best bowler, let alone top 5, or the greatest ever. Let me remind you of your rankings.

The first 3 are top tier. The next 3-4 are a very slight tier below. Then comes a HUGE gap with Imran coming in at number 8. And then the next 50 follow him with no drop in quality (which means pick whomever you like).

Yeah but those intangibles y'know...

 

[shortpitched713]

tbf as you go up in all levels (even from fc to tests) the match duration also increases, which may be a factor.

How the **** does having longer to play make the average scores go up? If anything, the causality of the relationship is the opposite, i.e. because the batsmen can last longer and play longer innings, the duration of the matches can be increased from 3 to 4 all the way up to 5 days at Test level.

 

[kyear2]

So I've looked through every single ATG XI listed on the first page of Google search, each of you can do the same to verify the results.

Cricinfo
Wasim, Marshall, Warne, Lillee.

Wisden
Wasim, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

CWeb
Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Armstrong
Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Benaud
Imran, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Cricketbet.au
Wasim, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Bleacher Report
Imran, Marshall, Warne, Murali, McGrath

I've also included this one team by a gentleman on Quora, just because 1. It popped up on the first page and 2. he gave reasoning for each of his selections and the logic is sound. And yes he talks about batting.

I'll leave a link...

What is the best test team for World XI of all time?

Answer (1 of 5): I would make world test XI on the basis of players I have watched/seen 1. Greame Smith (5279 runs with 54.98 avg + 56.78 SR in away venues) 2. Vivian Richards - (5404 runs with 50.50 avg in away venues) 3. Sachin Tendulkar - (7760 runs with 56.64 average + 55.35 SR in away venu...

www.quora.com

Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, McGrath


Obviously only Wisden and the Cricinfo team are collaborative efforts and none of us will agree with most, far less all of them. But in none of them is there an all in, bat deep philosophy referenced or selected.

This is a philosophy that is fully born and exists only here.

Since some are incapable of reading to understand.

The position posted by @Bolo was that any and all teams would go balls deep into selecting the team based on batting alone and that Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne is a no brainer, you go all in. Not a single team I've ever seen has had that combination.

My position is and was that no one would do that, at least some of it has to be based on bowling alone., even if you select a no 8 that's of comparable quality who can bat. A Barnes, a McGrath, bowling is a speciality and can't be treated as an after though for selecting all of them.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think this is an interesting argument. Is there evidence that average FC scores in country are lower than intl scores? I thought the WSC scores were lower on average, for example.

But I agree, I think the case for Imran and Hadlee is strong regardless.

FC and lower level matches last 3-4 days. And they're not terminally infested with draws. It's because it takes higher quality batsmen to be able to play the length of innings (and hence score the greater totals) required for longer matches. There is a confounding factor, in that potentially better quality pitches (for batting) would tend to be produced the higher level you go, but I think that is secondary to the improvement in batting quality in producing more substantial totals. Producing a good batting pitch isn't exactly rocket science, it's got to be regular and flat, and something which FC level grounds preparation is capable of.

 

[Coronis]

How the **** does having longer to play make the average scores go up? If anything, the causality of the relationship is the opposite, i.e. because the batsmen can last longer and play longer innings, the duration of the matches can be increased from 3 to 4 all the way up to 5 days at Test level.

The match is shorter. Batsman therefore need to play more aggressively to ensure a result, and build a total faster. Thus they play more rash shots, thus they get out more easily, thus lower scores.

Thusly explained.

 

[subshakerz]

My position is and was that no one would do that, at least some of it has to be based on bowling alone., even if you select a no 8 that's of comparable quality who can bat. A Barnes, a McGrath, bowling is a speciality and can't be treated as an after though for selecting all of them.

This isn't your position though. You don't have a batting no.8.

You are changing it now just because all the ATG XIs you showed don't follow your formula.

 

[kyear2]

 

[shortpitched713]

Sell me the case that Imran is the best or greatest bowler ever.

There are 3 bowlers who can make legitimate arguments to be the best, 4 if you want to include Murali.

The guy we have consistently voted 8th in bowling rankings who's away performances are more relatable to Lara's than anyone's else's, and that's just been trashed and argued to be disqualifying to be in the best after Bradman tier.

I'm listening.

Depends on how much you value peak vs longevity. He has the absolute best peak of any bowler, hands down, and it takes some mental gymnastics to argue against that. He also played his home Tests in very difficult bowling conditions, but I know your objection to that point so no need to push back on that.

The peak alone is enough to put him top 5 or higher in some people's eyes (not mine though). That's part of the top pantheon. Even though you disagree, a bowler of that quality simply isn't losing out on much actual value to any other in history.

The fallback of course is that regardless of what exact rank you put his bowling at, it ends up miles above any player with a comparable level of batting. If he's presumably your 4th specialist bowler, then surely even you could admit there is plausible justification to tradeoff batting at the 8th position only, if not at 9 and lower. It's something that's been done pretty regularly in cricket history, and in much more extreme ways.



For me, the whole exercise comes down to 1) Where you rank each of the consensus top X bowlers, and 2) How much of these (justifiable in most cases) tradeoffs, you're willing to do.

Imran, Hadlee, Marshall could all fight for and be considered reasonable 8-9 choices, especially if you consider Marshall the GOAT, and have McGrath as your 11.

Hell, you could skip McGrath, and go something as batting oriented as:

Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

And it's not outside the realm of plausibility for an All Time XI attack, that bats down to XI.

I like Murali, so I stick him in mine. Steyn and Ambrose could similarly go in the 10/11 spot if you're really high on one of their bowling qualities.

Obviously there are a lot of permutations, that are all plausible. To imply that there is a "philosophy" that leads through a logical process to one of these being the provable best, I think is a bit silly.

 

[shortpitched713]

The match is shorter. Batsman therefore need to play more aggressively to ensure a result, and build a total faster. Thus they play more rash shots, thus they get out more easily, thus lower scores.

Thusly explained.

I don't see it. Either on scorecard, or on screen.

There's a lot more aggressive strokeplay in general these days, but that has more to do with outside influences of limited overs conditioned batsmen, rather than I think the amount of time available in FC matches. The fact there are more and more "early" results in Test matches than in previous decades is an indicator of that as well. It's not as simple to be able to bat for more time, just because you are given more.

In previous decades where early finishes were less prevalent in Test matches, I don't think that FC cricketers had the ability to play out 5 day matches on a regular basis, but outside of scorecards and highlights I will concede I haven't watched decades of FC cricket, so will appeal to any afficianados with more experience on this.

 

[kyear2]

Depends on how much you value peak vs longevity. He has the absolute best peak of any bowler, hands down, and it takes some mental gymnastics to argue against that. He also played his home Tests in very difficult bowling conditions, but I know your objection to that point so no need to push back on that.

The peak alone is enough to put him top 5 or higher in some people's eyes (not mine though). That's part of the top pantheon. Even though you disagree, a bowler of that quality simply isn't losing out on much actual value to any other in history.

The fallback of course is that regardless of what exact rank you put his bowling at, it ends up miles above any player with a comparable level of batting. If he's presumably your 4th specialist bowler, then surely even you could admit there is plausible justification to tradeoff batting at the 8th position only, if not at 9 and lower. It's something that's been done pretty regularly in cricket history, and in much more extreme ways.



For me, the whole exercise comes down to 1) Where you rank each of the consensus top X bowlers, and 2) How much of these (justifiable in most cases) tradeoffs, you're willing to do.

Imran, Hadlee, Marshall could all fight for and be considered reasonable 8-9 choices, especially if you consider Marshall the GOAT, and have McGrath as your 11.

Hell, you could skip McGrath, and go something as batting oriented as:

Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

And it's not outside the realm of plausibility for an All Time XI attack, that bats down to XI.

I like Murali, so I stick him in mine. Steyn and Ambrose could similarly go in the 10/11 spot if you're really high on one of their bowling qualities.

Obviously there are a lot of permutations, that are all plausible. To imply that there is a "philosophy" that leads through a logical process to one of these being the provable best, I think is a bit silly.

Tour argument literally ended with you saying he isn't in your top 5.

We just did a vote and Imran fot 0 votes even for the top 3, far less the top spot.

No one believes he's in contention to be the best bowler ever.

Over the course of his career he didn't average below 24 in any country (though would give a pass for his first tour), so not below 25 in any country except England and 28 in two. So where exactly was he all world besides at home, and yeah...

But yeah, not even you believed the argument you were trying to make.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tour argument literally ended with you saying he isn't in your top 5.

But yeah, not even you believed the argument you were trying to make.

You're selectively reading.

The crux of my argument is that some people put peak performance over all else, and thus they could be completely justified in picking Imran as the best bowler all time. As a side note I mentioned that's not my own criteria, but you interpreted that to mean that there isn't an argument for Imran.

And I most certainly believe that he had the greatest bowler peak of all time, which is the central part of the argument.

 

[kyear2]

You're selectively reading.

The crux of my argument is that some people put peak performance over all else, and thus they could be completely justified in picking Imran as the best bowler all time. As a side note I mentioned that's not my own criteria, but you interpreted that to mean that there isn't an argument for Imran.

And I most certainly believe that he had the greatest bowler peak of all time, which is the central part of the argument.

So I assume there's a rating or article or something everywhere where someone rates him as the best?

I posted an article the other day from Viv where he was asked who was the best he faced and best he's been around. The names, the only names he was willing to even say were Lillee and Marshall.

There's a reason why people from the era don't look at the peak the stat guru guys don't. They know how it was done, even Viv referred to some who were home warriors who didn't operate the same away from home. Too many ***

 

[Bolo.]

Since some are incapable of reading to understand.

The position posted by @Bolo was that any and all teams would go balls deep into selecting the team based on batting alone and that Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne is a no brainer, you go all in. Not a single team I've ever seen has had that combination.

My position is and was that no one would do that, at least some of it has to be based on bowling alone., even if you select a no 8 that's of comparable quality who can bat. A Barnes, a McGrath, bowling is a speciality and can't be treated as an after though for selecting all of them.

You are putting a lot of words into my mouth.

My positions were that lower order batting is important and that Hadlee + Imran is a stronger combo than Steyn + Mcgrath.

Imran and Hadlee are my personal pick for this team. I don't think they are the only defensible combo. And I'm aware that people will pick combos I regard as kinda indefensible. I dont think everyone should go balls to the walls bat deep. Nobody has ever had the quality resources to do it. It should always be a consideration, but a world XI is about the only place it can be seriously considered to this extent, cos a bunch of the best bowlers ever from different countries can also bat.

 

[kyear2]

You are putting a lot of words into my mouth.

My positions were that lower order batting is important and that Hadlee + Imran is a stronger combo than Steyn + Mcgrath.

Imran and Hadlee are my personal pick for this team. I don't think they are the only defensible combo. And I'm aware that people will pick combos I regard as kinda indefensible. I dont think everyone should go balls to the walls bat deep. Nobody has ever had the quality resources to do it. It should always be a consideration, but a world XI is about the only place it can be seriously considered to this extent, cos a bunch of the best bowlers ever from different countries can also bat.

Respectfully, no I haven't. You have said that basically it's a no brainer to just select them because they are the best batsmen among the bowlers, basically it's the combo anyone would chose if they were selecting such a team.

I then looked around the interwebs and not a single organization, collective or person chose that combination. Becuse as I've said you cannot chose your entire bowling lineup based on batting, it's, imo ILLOGICAL.

I don't think that my opinion is the only one, nor an I trying to convince anyone of anything. I wanted an open discussion about what would people would see as an ideal bowling lineup in an ATG scenario.

To steal your word, the only combination that I find indefensible would be to choose 3 bowlers from the exact same bowling era, where one was a clear 3rd in the pecking order, where all 3 are being selected for their batting.

I'm aware that for most there should be a balanced approach where the no 8 at least can hold the bat, I'm ok with that. My only position is that in a team with this batting strength, you have the ability to choose the best possible bowling attack that compliments each other and is most capable of taking the 20 wickets for as little runs as possible. That's their main job and that should be paramount in the selection process.

So while you make the argument about how many runs they can score, for me, that's 1. immaterial and 2. not something one can count on on these scenarios.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, that's just my perspective based on watching cricket for 4 decades. McGrath of Barnes, who ever your guy is, has to be there.

 

[kyear2]

With regards to reverse, I've gone through every thread on the forum past and present that I could find with regards to it.

I've read, watched and thought about it and despite the argument that it's a valuable weapon, too many great bowlers have been ridiculously effective without it to believe that it's a must. It's useful, but with the skill that these guys had, it wasn't a detriment not having it. And obviously that's echoed by Hadlee currentlyeading the poll.

So yes, Hadlee is imo clearly the best choice for the team, for most in the forum he's clearly the 3rd best of all time, and fits the no. 8 requirement.

But while it makes no sense, and it may be right that he may get hit out of the attack and losing Hadlee hurts the batting depth, Steyn just beings a dynamic presence that I like. He was exposed to more unhelpful conditions away from home and having 3 guys from different eras just covers more bases.
But Hadlee's still in my squad, and like Hutton he's there in case I'm batshit crazy and wrong about Barry and Steyn. Becuse yes, I very well may be.

 

[kyear2]

Apparently not. McGrath is loaded into 4 of the 5 poll choices and yet 31.7% voted for the one choice with no McGrath

First of all I just meant from my perspective.

But also, no. The one poll chance where he isn't an option was the one with the least amount of votes.

3 votes & 7%

 

[kyear2]

So, I wanted to discuss the argument that the better all round cricketer, should make the team.

Yes, Hadlee and for many Imran is seen as the the better cricketer that McGrath, but I can easily make an identical argument for Kallis and especially Hammond over Tendulkar.

Yes Sachin is "slightly" the better batsman, but Hammond is very similar in terms of quality and MO, arguably the greatest ever slip fielder, and a very valuable 6th bowler. Which may well be required in these games.

Does that also mean that one should replace the other? If we're being consistent, one would think.

I don't know, but at some point primary skill supremacy should have some impact.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm aware that for most there should be a balanced approach where the no 8 at least can hold the bat, I'm ok with that.

Are you really okay with that? You have made it a crusade to make Imran at no.8 inadmissable. At least you acknowledged it's a more balanced approach to your four tailenders.

But while it makes no sense, and it may be right that he may get hit out of the attack and losing Hadlee hurts the batting depth, Steyn just beings a dynamic presence that I like.

You are making absolutely no logic here.

You go on and on about bowling strength, and then you decide to put Steyn knowing that he by your admission will be a loss both for bowling (since you don't rate reverse) and batting.

But hey at least you admit my point that Steyn is likely to be smacked around in this scenario.