Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[ankitj]

10-15 years ago there was a cricket Info article where they calculated the batting average of the batsmen dismissed. The only Atg fast Bowlers with a better wicket quality than McGrath where Larwood (due to Bradman), Lillee, Lindwall and Miller.

Time for a plug:

How valuable is that wicket!

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore. Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard...

www.cricketweb.net

Lillee and Miller are there but not Lindwall. Interesting that Kallis has a better quality of wicket than many legends. Haters can suck it.

 

[Flametree]

I think @Burgey gave a good point about McGrath's height, a bit of an edge over Hadlee in that regard.

I think the left arm thing gets overplayed though, especially as already have Sobers as left arm option.

If height is the thing, then Ambrose beats McGrath...

 

[shortpitched713]

For mine, if you pick any combination of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, or Steyn you can't go wrong.

Probably don't want all of the latter 3, for batting at 9 though.

 

[subshakerz]

For mine, if you pick any combination of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, or Steyn you can't go wrong.

Probably don't want all of the latter 3, for batting at 9 though.

I know I am in the minority here, but I do think you have a minor issue with picking Steyn as a third seamer. He will likely get a lot of stick until the ball is old and release all the pressure. He needs the new ball.

 

[shortpitched713]

I know I am in the minority here, but I do think you have a minor issue with picking Steyn as a third seamer. He will likely get a lot of stick until the ball is old and release all the pressure. He needs the new ball.

Just give him the new ball then, problem solved.

 

[kyear2]

For mine, if you pick any combination of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, or Steyn you can't go wrong.

Probably don't want all of the latter 3, for batting at 9 though.

As usual I greatly disagree, there's clearly a hierarchy to it, but... you've been posting your normal stuff this morning, so keep at it.

 

[ma1978]

Marshall
Akram
Hadlee

could have done Steyn for Akram and McGrath for Hadlee on another day.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Actually Marshall, Mcgrath/Hadlee and Wasim is the best for me, since Wasim was nearly as good as Imran with reverse swing, but being a left armer brings more variety.

 

[kyear2]

I know I am in the minority here, but I do think you have a minor issue with picking Steyn as a third seamer. He will likely get a lot of stick until the ball is old and release all the pressure. He needs the new ball.

And conversely he was better than Imran with the newer ball, and had a wayy better strike rate, while Imran wasn't at his best untill the ball was prepared for reverse... Would be instructive to tell both sides of the story.

And no, you're not in the minority, Steyn is a solid last in the votes.

Just give him the new ball then, problem solved.

There's at least 3 better new ball bowlers than him from that list, possibly 4. So no, that's not an option.

 

[shortpitched713]

I've been arguing for a long time now for Steyn's greatness and that he clearly belongs in these listing of the very top, to the resistance of the more conservative posters here.

He probably suffers a bit from being great but not superlative, in many ways. He has solid longevity and consistency, but not the best. Very good peak, but not the best there either. Not the absolute best with either new ball (McGrath for mine), or reverse (Waqar/Wasim), but deadly with both. He had all the tools in his bag, but still gets overlooked.

Even his unique selling point, lowest SR of the lot for a lead strike bowler (and I've argued why this is a useful tiebreaker), somehow is still used against him.

I guess oldheads gonna oldhead.

 

[subshakerz]

And conversely he was better than Imran with the newer ball, and had a wayy better strike rate, while Imran wasn't at his best untill the ball was prepared for reverse... Would be instructive to tell both sides of the story.

Well, Steyn's lower SR comes with a higher ER, so why dont you tell that side of the story?

I agree Steyn is a slightly better new ball bowler, but we are talking about 3rd seamer here and Imran is clearly more suitable and won't spray it around and ruin all that good pressure that Marshall and McGrath build.

There's at least 3 better new ball bowlers than him from that list, possibly 4. So no, that's not an option.

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose better with the new ball than Steyn. On a docile wicket, I would take even Imran and Akram but Steyn is more damaging on a green track with the new ball.

 

[shortpitched713]

That being said, though I rate Steyn marginally ahead of Ambrose, I can't think of a better contrasting thunder/lightning new ball combination than the two of then given the new ball.

One taller release point, the other other shorter side. One being miserly as ****, and the other constantly testing your stump guard.

Case in point to how even though those two are the least popular, you really can't go wrong with almost any of the names on this list.

 

[subshakerz]

I've been arguing for a long time now for Steyn's greatness and that he clearly belongs in these listing of the very top, to the resistance of the more conservative posters here.

He probably suffers a bit from being great but not superlative, in many ways. He has solid longevity and consistency, but not the best. Very good peak, but not the best there either. Not the absolute best with either new ball (McGrath for mine), or reverse (Waqar/Wasim), but deadly with both. He had all the tools in his bag, but still gets overlooked.

Even his unique selling point, lowest SR of the lot for a lead strike bowler (and I've argued why this is a useful tiebreaker), somehow is still used against him.

I guess oldheads gonna oldhead.

Because having watched him, he was smashed way too often for my liking. My impression was that if the pitch wasn't supportive and he was facing a top bat, he would be collared. Or he would randomly lose his radar. None of the others were ever really dominated that regularly per se, if at all.

His SR comes with the highest ER of any ATG bowler, so if he wasn't taking wickets, he was getting smacked. I prefer a bowler who can keep it tight even when not taking wickets. You don't need quick wickets that desperately in tests to justify him taking stick.

If someone scored a ton against Steyn, you really have to see how Steyn bowled because it could be an achievement or Steyn could have just been bowling crap (similar to an extent with Rabada who also has an excellent SR). I wouldnt say that about the other ATG pacers.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because having watched him, he was smashed way too often for my liking. My impression was that if the pitch wasn't supportive and he was facing a top bat, he would be collared. None of the others were ever really dominated that regularly per se, if at all.

His SR comes with the highest ER of any ATG bowler, so if he wasn't taking wickets, he was getting smacked. I prefer a bowler who can keep it tight even when not taking wickets.

This is exactly the tinted nostalgia glasses type argument I am talking about. Every bowler got hit about. Even Ambrose and McGrath got hit about at some points, we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen, or sweep it aside.

The second paragraph is a tautology of how average is a composite of SR and ER. These guys have very similar averages, my point was that you take the low SR high ER as opposed to the opposite, because at the same average level (the very tie we are trying to break), you can't get one except at the cost of the other.

 

[subshakerz]

This is exactly the tinted nostalgia glasses type argument I am talking about. Every bowler got hit about. Even Ambrose and McGrath got hit about at some points, we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen, or sweep it aside.

I said regularly. Ambrose and Mcgrath weren't regularly dominated. Of course they had off days. Steyn wasn't consistent and has a list of bats who have owned him.

The second paragraph is a tautology of how average is a composite of SR and ER. These guys have very similar averages, my point was that you take the low SR high ER as opposed to the opposite, because at the same average level (the very tie we are trying to break), you can't get one except at the cost of the other.

Yes but my point is that in test cricket, the supposed benefit of a better SR is outweighed IMO by a higher ER. McGrath taking an over or two more to take a wicket doesnt matter much in the grand scheme of things especially as he builds pressure that the other bowlers can use.

But there is a limit of course. I prefer Steyn for example to Ambrose who in his second career half had lost his penetration to the extent that his better ER didn't matter so much.

 

[Bolo.]

I said regularly. Ambrose and Mcgrath weren't regulaqrly dominated. Of course they had off days. Steyn wasn't consistent and has a list of bats who have owned him.


Yes but my point is that in test cricket, the supposed benefit of a better SR is outweighed IMO by a higher ER. McGrath taking an over or two more to take a wicket doesnt matter much in the grand scheme of things especially as he builds pressure that the other bowlers can use.

But there is a limit of course. I prefer Steyn for example to Ambrose who in his second career half had lost his penetration to the extent that his better ER didn't matter so much.

Are you implying there is a crossover point for low SRs not being useful? There will be times you are playing for a draw etc., but if you could find a bowler getting hit for 28 runs an over at an average of 22, he'd be better than Bradman.

 

[shortpitched713]

I said regularly. Ambrose and Mcgrath weren't regularly dominated. Of course they had off days. Steyn wasn't consistent and has a list of bats who have owned him.


Yes but my point is that in test cricket, the supposed benefit of a better SR is outweighed IMO by a higher ER. McGrath taking an over or two more to take a wicket doesnt matter much in the grand scheme of things especially as he builds pressure that the other bowlers can use.

But there is a limit of course. I prefer Steyn for example to Ambrose who in his second career half had lost his penetration to the extent that his better ER didn't matter so much.

So you're a goldilocks guy.

Ew.

 

[kyear2]

I've been arguing for a long time now for Steyn's greatness and that he clearly belongs in these listing of the very top, to the resistance of the more conservative posters here.

He probably suffers a bit from being great but not superlative, in many ways. He has solid longevity and consistency, but not the best. Very good peak, but not the best there either. Not the absolute best with either new ball (McGrath for mine), or reverse (Waqar/Wasim), but deadly with both. He had all the tools in his bag, but still gets overlooked.

Even his unique selling point, lowest SR of the lot for a lead strike bowler (and I've argued why this is a useful tiebreaker), somehow is still used against him.

I guess oldheads gonna oldhead.

No one's saying Steyn wasn't a legit ATG, but he's not overlooked.
I have him nip and tuck as the 4th best pacer along with Ambrose, but they aren't in the same class as the top 3.

His Sr is a the differentiator with him, Amby and Imran, but it can't make up for all of his other shortcomings with the top 3 guys. He gets credit for the dead ball era but was only godly at home and his record in India. Subs is right, he did get hit around more that the top guys, but I don't hate that as much because he was always searching for wickets.

He did though, as you pointed out have the best combination of conventional and reverse swing, and that Sr. But as subs pointed out, on unhelpful wickets he was less likely to be destructive and the most likely to be destroyed.

 

[subshakerz]

So you're a goldilocks guy.

Ew.

it's based more on watching them playing frankly.

Steyn was the type who would give you a loose ball every over but if he was in the zone could run through your side with jaffas.

Ambrose gave you nothing to score off and his chances of getting you out depended on how much he got out of the pitch with his height, otherwise easier to block.

McGrath you wouldn't have much to score off and over a long enough spell couldn't block him out either, he would likely get you.

 

[subshakerz]

His Sr is a the differentiator with him, Amby and Imran, but it can't make up for all of his other shortcomings with the top 3 guys. He gets credit for the dead ball era but was only godly at home and his record in India. Subs is right, he did get hit around more that the top guys, but I don't hate that as much because he was always searching for wickets.

I don't mind you rating him ahead of Imran but we disagree over whether he is a more suitable 3rd seamer since I think getting hit around would be more of a liability then.

But as subs pointed out, on unhelpful wickets he was less likely to be destructive and the most likely to be destroyed.

Not just in unhelpful wickets really. He would go missing even in his own home tests. Best examples would be Australias tours of SA in 2009 and 2014 when he was getting spanked around for fun for tons by Hughes and Warner. I remember watching that and thinking no way should it have been that easy to score against Steyn in his home grounds.

Also the 2013 India tour of SA first test, his radar was totally off and he was being easily negotiated by a young Kohli and Pujara. Then he destroyed India just in time in the second test after being wicketless for something like 50/60 overs and totally outbowled by Philander. He really blew hot and cold.