Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Coronis]

I see you're trying to be pedantic.

1. By locks I meant by votes here. There's no way in hell Sachin isn't making any all all AT teams here and everyone knows it.

If you want to use locks as in there's no justifiable way to drop them 4.

Bradman
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall

In the last vote for the AT XI Marshall was unanimous, Gilchrist wasn't. in the poll that's currently ongoing he has I believe 42 out of 44 votes, one of the two by @shortpitched713

If you want to go best bowlers he makes it, if you want to go bat deep he makes it, you want to go hybrid he makes it.

In the last vote for greatest bowled ever he cleared McGrath easily and almost lapped Hadlee in 3rd.

He's just as much as a lock as Sobers and ahead of Gilchrist.

There's an argument some may use against Gilchrist, if you want the better keeper in Knott as Wisden did.

There's no argument against Marshall not getting one of three bowling spots in an ATG XI

Let's look at the players who made the only 3 amalgamation teams we've seen.

Cricinfo, Wisden and Ours
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Marshall
Warne

So yes @Coronis kindly indicate the argument that Marshall isn't a lock while Gilchrist is...

Um well because the gap to the next best pacers is easily smaller than the gap to the next best keeper bats (in my opinion). Of course, you have 3 slots for the pacers so its more likely he’d get more votes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I see you're trying to be pedantic.

1. By locks I meant by votes here. There's no way in hell Sachin isn't making any all all AT teams here and everyone knows it.

If you want to use locks as in there's no justifiable way to drop them 4.

Bradman
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall

In the last vote for the AT XI Marshall was unanimous, Gilchrist wasn't. in the poll that's currently ongoing he has I believe 42 out of 44 votes, one of the two by @shortpitched713

If you want to go best bowlers he makes it, if you want to go bat deep he makes it, you want to go hybrid he makes it.

In the last vote for greatest bowled ever he cleared McGrath easily and almost lapped Hadlee in 3rd.

He's just as much as a lock as Sobers and ahead of Gilchrist.

There's an argument some may use against Gilchrist, if you want the better keeper in Knott as Wisden did.

There's no argument against Marshall not getting one of three bowling spots in an ATG XI

Let's look at the players who made the only 3 amalgamation teams we've seen.

Cricinfo, Wisden and Ours
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Marshall
Warne

So yes @Coronis kindly indicate the argument that Marshall isn't a lock while Gilchrist is...

Imran
Hadlee
McGrath

A very capable attack; one which won't miss Marshall much.

 

[kyear2]

Um well because the gap to the next best pacers is easily smaller than the gap to the next best keeper bats (in my opinion). Of course, you have 3 slots for the pacers so its more likely he’d get more votes.

So more likely he'll get in.

That's all I asked, thanks.

He didn't just get more votes. It's all but unanimous. Not to add every AT team I can recall seeing.

 

[subshakerz]

1. By locks I meant by votes here.

Lol come on man. We know what you meant.

 

[kyear2]

Imran
Hadlee
McGrath

A very capable attack; one which won't miss Marshall much.

Much?

Is it the best?

 

[kyear2]

Lol come on man. We know what you meant.

Yes, that if we were to select a team today, or if Cricinfo or Wisden or any cricket publication were to, there are 6 names that we can be pretty sure will be there. There are 4 names that will guaranteed to be there.

And the sad part is that you know this.

Bradman
Sobers
Marshall
Gilchrist

Will all be guaranteed to make it.

The other 2 of Hobbs and Sachin are also pretty much guaranteed to do so.

Just tell me if I'm wrong, not about acceptable or not much worse, the team that will be picked no doubt.

This is just trolling at this point.

 

[subshakerz]

There are 4 names that will guaranteed to be there.

Yeah that's what are called locks.

You would... justify it.

Yeah I believe Imran should be there but he isn't a lock. You could replace him with Hadlee for example.

 

[Bolo.]

Imran
Hadlee
McGrath

A very capable attack; one which won't miss Marshall much.

You won't miss any player besides Bradman much if you can pick the best substitute.

But this team would clearly be stronger with Marshall in place of Mcgrath. Better batting, better variety, and a side grade (at worst) on bowling quality.

 

[subshakerz]

You won't miss any player besides Bradman much if you can pick the best substitute.

But this team would clearly be stronger with Marshall in place of Mcgrath. Better batting, better variety, and a side grade (at worst) on bowling quality.

To be frank, I think you could variations of each attack and make cases for each to be better.

Marshall, Imran, Steyn - Indomitable in SC and WI

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath - Indomitable in Aus, NZ and Eng

Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn/Imran - New ball is indomitable in SENA, with a reverse option for when needed

Marshall is the best all-round bowler but depending on where you will be playing most of your cricket and what places are more important, he can be worked around.

So the real question is the ratio of results we are aiming for from our attack?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Much?

Is it the best?

By much, I meant it's arguably better. I think McGrath>Marshall is a very very valid take; and the rest are close as it is as bowlers and better batsmen.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You won't miss any player besides Bradman much if you can pick the best substitute.

But this team would clearly be stronger with Marshall in place of Mcgrath. Better batting, better variety, and a side grade (at worst) on bowling quality.

Again, I agree. But McGrath being better than Marshall is very debatable to me.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah that's what are called locks.


Yeah I believe Imran should be there but he isn't a lock. You could replace him with Hadlee for example.

I love Viv, but I know he's not a definite lock, well not here, probably the publications.

But to say the 4 names mentioned aren't is disingenuous.

 

[subshakerz]

I love Viv, but I know he's not a definite lock, well not here, probably the publications.

But to say the 4 names mentioned are is disingenuous.

So Bradman, Sobers, Marshall and Gilchrist aren't locks for you?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I love Viv, but I know he's not a definite lock, well not here, probably the publications.

But to say the 4 names mentioned are is disingenuous.

Viv isn't a lock in the publications either; and so aren't Gilly and Marshall. Bradman is the only true "lock", without whom a team is without a doubt worse; and at most so is Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

To be frank, I think you could variations of each attack and make cases for each to be better.

Marshall, Imran, Steyn - Indomitable in SC and WI

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath - Indomitable in Aus, NZ and Eng

Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn/Imran - New ball is indomitable in SENA, with a reverse option for when needed

Marshall is the best all-round bowler but depending on where you will be playing most of your cricket and what places are more important, he can be worked around.

So the real question is the ratio of results we are aiming for from our attack?

That was bullshit and you know it.

 

[kyear2]

So Bradman, Sobers, Marshall and Gilchrist aren't locks for you?

Yes they are.

 

[subshakerz]

That was bull**** and you know it.

I don't think you get the point I am trying to argue.

 

[kyear2]

Viv isn't a lock in the publications either; and so aren't Gilly and Marshall. Bradman is the only true "lock", without whom a team is without a doubt worse; and at most so is Sobers.

You're twisting the words. We're not asking how much worse they would be.

We're asking if anyone is chosing the best team, aren't these guys, automatic selections?

It's not a difficult question, literally just look at the poll at the top of the page.

 

[Bolo.]

Again, I agree. But McGrath being better than Marshall is very debatable to me.

While I prefer Marshall (more reliable penetration regardless of conditions or quality of bats), I have no issues with rating Mcgrath ahead (played half his career in a bowling era). They are extremely comparable in quality, even if most rate Marshall ahead.

I don't think an attack that includes Hadlee and Mcgrath would be as strong as one with Marshall in it, even if I thought Mcgrath was fractionally better. Variety counts.

Then there is the batting, and the (admittedly almost meaningless) fielding difference.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think you get the point I am trying to argue.

Don't think you are.... You're arguing it depends which part of the world you're playing, different combinations etc. that's not how it's done. Same question I asked above, if you're chosing the best possible world XI are these 4 players not locks to make it.

It's a simple question.