Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Bolo.]

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.

He was the most destructive bowler of all time on unhelpful tracks. Just could be more expensive than others of comparable quality. Helpful wickets is where others could be more destructive.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Good post and some really good points here. The only one I don't agree with is the one highlighted (though the previous sentence is the opposite of every argument you've made against Ambrose, but another time). There's advantages to being able to blow through a side quickly, especially if you're a lone warrior, you will give up a few runs for quick wickets. In a strong attack that's likely less desirable, but he only knew one way.

Honestly, after the post I was ready to change my vote, but then there's the questions surrounding the other two candidates as well. All 3 of the 3rd bowler options have their drawbacks that makes it a difficult choice.
I think about a post made by either ORS or Ankit, that if Imran or McGrath had to do it over there would be doubt about who would have the better bowling career, but not batting. While I think that is nonsense, it applies to Steyn however. That said, Steyn obviously was the better bowler but all two had questions and drawbacks.
Hadlee on the other hand and on first glance is the perfect compromise and candidate for the spot. And to be honest his drawbacks are wayy less and much more subjective, or even silly. He had the most consistently favorable conditions of all of them, feasted on the minnows of his time, and had the least competition for wickets (positive and negative).
He didn't possess reverse, which though not a requirement, can be a bonus. But can also be argued he did pretty well without it.
The part that stupidly bothers me is that I've literally never seen him in an ATG XI, and his peer review while he played wasn't that great. Lillee was seen as the clear superior, even by him, Viv always mentions two bowlers and one is never him.
I've read that it was perceived that he was just a pursuer of stats and records, but wasn't everyone? I've also read that on flatter wickets, like Ambrose (later career), would just pull back his length and keep it outside off and wait for something to happen, though not sure if that's a bad thing either, but he didn't keep pushing or trying different things like, say Marshall or Steyn.
None of this takes away from his place as the 3rd best pacer ever and a very good lower order batsman, and of course leading the poll. Just makes me wonder if he's the clear cut contender for the 3rd spot. Of course it could also be that being from NZ, that he wasn't in the middle of the power struggles and big series that got all of the attention.

Sorry for the extended rant.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

In your example a bowler would concede over 200 in an 8 over spell, I don't see how that makes him better.

But low SR is only better if your ER is also commensurately lower too, like Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

Good post and some really good points here. The only one I don't agree with is the one highlighted (though the previous sentence is the opposite of every argument you've made against Ambrose, but another time). There's advantages to being able to blow through a side quickly, especially if you're a lone warriors, you will give up a few runs for quick wickets. In a strong attack that's likely less desirable, but he only knew one way.

Yes. I put Steyn ahead of Ambrose for this reason, more penetrative end of the day. I have questions on Ambrose on certain tracks that I don't for Steyn.

However, I also don't want to overstate the SR angle. I think a bit of his low SR was just the playing style he faced, and I think Ambrose and Imran would have had slightly lower SRs and slightly higher ERs if they played in his era.

Hadlee on the other hand and on first glance is the perfect compromise and candidate for the spot. And to be honest his drawbacks are wayy less and much more subjective, or even silly. He had the most consistently favorable conditions of all of them, feasted on the minnows of his time, and had the least competition for wickets (positive and negative).
He doesn't possess reverse, which though not a requirement, can be a bonus. But can also be argued he did pretty well without it.
The part that stupidly bothers me is that I've literally never seen him in an ATG XI, and his peer review while he played wasn't that great.

We are both McGrath firsters, but frankly speaking, McGrath may be a better 3rd seamer option if Hadlee is playing. Though it just seems wrong.

I am not clear if Hadlee is inferior to McGrath as a new ball bowler. McGrath had height but Hadlee was likely quicker through the air.

But anyways, which ATG XI have you seen McGrath in either? I can't recall any outside of CW.

 

[Bolo.]

In your example a bowler would concede over 200 in an 8 over spell, I don't see how that makes him better.

But low SR is only better if your ER is also commensurately lower too, like Marshall.

You could play 8 specialist bats, and still have the GOAT bowling attack, even if your second bowler was poor in this hypothetical.

SR matters much less in the context of an ATG team than a regular one. But it doesn't stop being a factor in terms of averages until your average is the same as your teammates (including non-specialists). And even then it gives advantages.

 

[kyear2]

Yes. I put Steyn ahead of Ambrose for this reason, more penetrative end of the day. I have questions on Ambrose on certain tracks that I don't for Steyn.

However, I also don't want to overstate the SR angle. I think a bit of his low SR was just the playing style he faced, and I think Ambrose and Imran would have had slightly lower SRs and slightly higher ERs if they played in his era.


We are both McGrath firsters, but frankly speaking, McGrath may be a better 3rd seamer option if Hadlee is playing. Though it just seems wrong.

I am not clear if Hadlee is inferior to McGrath as a new ball bowler. McGrath had height but Hadlee was likely quicker through the air.

But anyways, which ATG XI have you seen McGrath in either? I can't recall any outside of CW.

McGrath transitioned from the bowling friendly to dead era with no discernable decline. Yes it could be argued that's not what his game is based of, and with the retirement of most of the greats, it seemed like some just didn't know how to play him, but he was a Colossus. He had pin point accuracy, bounce, seam movement and an unmatched aggression and knack for removing top order batsmen.
Intangibles... for all their greatness, that Aussie side isn't a contender for the greatest side ever without McGrath. He was the spearhead and best player on arguably the greatest ever.

Plus a lot of these teams were selected either during or just after his playing career. Don't think he would be missing these days.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath transitioned from the bowling friendly to dead era with no discernable decline. Yes it could be argued that's not what his game is based of, and with the retirement of most of the greats, it seemed like some just didn't know how to play him, but he was a Colossus. He had pin point accuracy, bounce, seam movement and an unmatched aggression and knack for removing top order batsmen.
Intangibles... for all their greatness, that Aussie side isn't a contender for the greatest side ever without McGrath. He was the spearhead and best player on arguably the greatest ever.

Plus a lot of these teams were selected either during or just after his playing career. Don't think he would be missing these days.

Yeah but I am not arguing McGrath vs Hadlee (McGrath is a tad better based on his career for me) but that Hadlee could get the new ball if they both play, as McGrath will be still excellent as third seamer.


Why don't you think McGrath gets selected for more ATG XIs, by the way?

 

[subshakerz]

You could play 8 specialist bats, and still have the GOAT bowling attack, even if your second bowler was poor in this hypothetical.

So are we assuming the other bowlers are just keeping it tight as bats score 28 an over from the other end? Lol.

SR matters much less in the context of an ATG team than a regular one. But it doesn't stop being a factor in terms of averages until your average is the same as your teammates (including non-specialists). And even then it gives advantages.

It gives advantages but low ER gives advantages too. If you are a superior batting unit, you don't mind a low SR/high ER bowler but otherwise it's a tradeoff.

 

[shortpitched713]

But low SR is only better if your ER is also commensurately lower too, like Marshall.

You realize that all you are saying is that Marshall has the lowest average of the bunch, which we all know.

The other words are useless, as they miss the point of the phenomenon we are descri ing.

 

[shortpitched713]

You could play 8 specialist bats, and still have the GOAT bowling attack, even if your second bowler was poor in this hypothetical.

SR matters much less in the context of an ATG team than a regular one. But it doesn't stop being a factor in terms of averages until your average is the same as your teammates (including non-specialists). And even then it gives advantages.
[/QUOTING.

Maths, Facts. Big up yourself.

 

[subshakerz]

You realize that all you are saying is that Marshall has the lowest average of the bunch, which we all know.

The other words are useless, as they miss the point of the phenomenon we are descri ing.

Yes, but this gets missed in these discussions where SR is treated in isolation. For whatever reason, average and SR are talked about separately.

 

[Bolo.]

So are we assuming the other bowlers are just keeping it tight as bats score 28 an over from the other end? Lol.


It gives advantages but low ER gives advantages too. If you are a superior batting unit, you don't mind a low SR/high ER bowler but otherwise it's a tradeoff.

The other bowler going at 8ish an over and averaging infinity would still give you a team average in line with WI/AUS. Good luck finding a bowler this bad.

The advantages that ER brings just don't stack up to SR advantages unless you are one of the worst bowlers in your team.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but I am not arguing McGrath vs Hadlee (McGrath is a tad better based on his career for me) but that Hadlee could get the new ball if they both play, as McGrath will be still excellent as third seamer.


Why don't you think McGrath gets selected for more ATG XIs, by the way?

Ummm, think McGrath probably benefits from the hard new ball with his bounce, so would give it to him.

Same reason Shane trounces Murali in ATG teams and Lillee makes them, bravado.

 

[Coronis]

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 Kallis has a better quality of wicket than many legends. Haters can suck it.

Perfect 5th bowler. He’s gonna come in, take a valuable partnership breaker and let the others go back to work.

 

[reyrey]

McGrath, Marshal, Ambrose, Lillee are all a similar percentage of Top 6 batsman of around 65/66%. Most specialist bowlers have lower %s.
In comparison Akram and Garner are around 55% to 6 batsmen.

For ATG bowlers Keith Miller is 71.5% top 6 and 78% Top 7.
If look at matches Keith actually bowled in, he averaged around 2.4 top 6 batsmen per match which is similar to Holding and higher than Akram, Waqar etc. For Keith its tail enders (particularly 10 & 11) where he is lacking wickets.

Vaas I think has a higher % of top 6 batsmen, can't be bothered checking.

------------------------------------------

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.

I'd assume McGrath and Vaas didn't get many tailend wickets because of Warne and Murali. Tailenders have no chance against that type of spin.

Top 7 wickets percentage. McGrath 74.8% Gillespie 76.1% and Lee 73.2%. They had very little chance of cleaning up the tail with Warne (or MacGill) in the team.

 

[MartinB]

I'd assume McGrath and Vaas didn't get many tailend wickets because of Warne and Murali.

I would agree with that. Also for the WI Garner got a lot of Tail-enders.

For Miller not totally sure but I would guess at:

• He enjoyed the challenge of bowling to the best batsmen and was not interested in bowling to bunnies
• Bradman used Lindwall/Miller sparingly (to keep them at there absolute best) and probably used the weaker bowlers at the weaker Batsmen

Lillee tended to take on the harder tasks. In the second half of his career, Australian spinners did a lot better when he was playing.

 

[Coronis]

I would agree with that. Also for the WI Garner got a lot of Tail-enders.

For Miller not totally sure but I would guess at:

• He enjoyed the challenge of bowling to the best batsmen and was not interested in bowling to bunnies
• Bradman used Lindwall/Miller sparingly (to keep them at there absolute best) and probably used the weaker bowlers at the weaker Batsmen

Lillee tended to take on the harder tasks. In the second half of his career, Australian spinners did a lot better when he was playing.

Miller only played 15 games with Bradman so that’s not much of an excuse. I would say its more that Miller played in a deep bowling attack and almost always opened the bowling.

 

[kyear2]

Perfect 5th bowler. He’s gonna come in, take a valuable partnership breaker and let the others go back to work.

I assume you mean Kallis here?

 

[kyear2]

So I mentioned in another thread that Marshall and McGrath for me are certainties,
So simple pros and cons for each of the other 3.

Steyn.
Pros - experience bowling in the flat pitch era and vs the new era of even more attacking batsmen. Think that's pretty critical
His strike rate and aggression
His record vs India pops out
Best combination of the ability to bowl conventional and reverse swing

Cons - his run rate was pretty high for this level, and is the most likely to release pressure
His away record in less helpful conditions isn't great.

Hadlee
Pros - best bowler of the 3 and in my top tier
Most capable of bowling marathon spells and taking wickets throughout the innings
Very good record home and away
Contributes with the bat and 2nd best batting option

Cons- bowled in most consistently favorable conditions
Peer review is a little worrying
Somewhat similar to McGrath
No reverse swing

Imran
Pros - mastery or reverse swing make him most suitable to bowling with the old ball
Best batsman of the group, by some margin
Offers inswing as a counter to the other team mates

Cons - away record (often in more helpful conditions) is a question mark
Could he produce his reverse swing as devastatingly in modern conditions
Relatively high s/r
Lowest rated bowler of the ones in contention.

 

[honestbharani]

Marshall, Wasim. Ambrose. Think it covers the widest variety with very little compromise on quality.