Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[capt_Luffy]

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.

As I said, I agree; but can definitely see the argument especially if you give McGrath high points for era, longevity and away record.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

And the answer is no, they aren't. Only 2 of them are. Even in this poll 2 people haven't voted for Marshall and I myself had Sanga in my AT team until very recently and don't consider that team to have been a degrade.

 

[kyear2]

As I said, I agree; but can definitely see the argument especially if you give McGrath high points for era, longevity and away record.

This argument would be for who's the best, and there are 3 slots.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

No my friend. I am asking when we say 'all-round attack' what importance are we giving to which conditions in which countries in which they need to perform.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This argument would be for who's the best, and there are 3 slots.

Hadlee had his own arguments and is at worst close to both of them as a bowler; batting is a big boost. And of course then there is Imran, a proper all rounder who is still comparable to Marshall somewhat.

 

[kyear2]

And the answer is no, they aren't. Only 2 of them are. Even in this poll 2 people haven't voted for Marshall and I myself had Sanga in my AT team until very recently and don't consider that team to have been a degrade.

2 of 42?

Is that your argument?

And until recently.

Lets do this again.

If we the populace of CW were creating a team tomorrow, in the absence of this argument. I can guarantee you 5 names that would 100% definitely make the team. Some close to unanimously.

If Cricinfo or Wisden were also to produce a team, I can guarantee you these 5 names will also 100% make it as well.

Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall.

If there's one that would be possibly vulnerable it would be Gilchrist as evidenced by the Wisden vote.

Its not about who would be close or not as big a downgrade or wouldn't be missed. The names above would make the team, some of them unanimously. That's not an argument.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee had his own arguments and is at worst close to both of them as a bowler; batting is a big boost. And of course then there is Imran, a proper all rounder who is still comparable to Marshall somewhat.

Meaning?

 

[capt_Luffy]

2 of 42?

Is that your argument?

And until recently.

Lets do this again.

If we the populace of CW were creating a team tomorrow, in the absence of this argument. I can guarantee you 5 names that would 100% definitely make the team. Some close to unanimously.

If Cricinfo or Wisden were also to produce a team, I can guarantee you these 5 names will also 100% make it as well.

Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall.

If there's one that would be possibly vulnerable it would be Gilchrist as evidenced by the Wisden vote.

Its not about who would be close or not as big a downgrade or wouldn't be missed. The names above would make the team, some of them unanimously. That's not an argument.

The argument isn't whether they would make the team or not; the argument is whether they would do so completely UNANIMOUSLY. If you try to make a CW AT Team, I can tell you who it will in every single position.

Hobbs, Hutton, Don*, Sachin, Viv, Sobers, Gilly+, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

 

[capt_Luffy]

Meaning?

Meaning an attack of Hadlee, Imran and McGrath is very viable and Marshall isn't an automatic selection

 

[Bolo.]

As I said, I agree; but can definitely see the argument especially if you give McGrath high points for era, longevity and away record.

I give half points for the era. Half his career was 90s, which was very much a bowling decade.

I give a bunch of points for away performances. Marshall gets more though. He wasn't playing the role of holding bowler when times were tough like Mcgrath sometimes did.

Longevity makes Mcgrath a greater bowler for me. But a pick for an ATG side is slightly different. I wouldn't give Mcgrath a longevity boost to the same extent as guys like Imran and Hadlee who were being picked long before being fully developed on account of playing for teams that lacked options.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I give half points for the era. Half his career was 90s, which was very much a bowling decade.

I give a bunch of points for away performances. Marshall gets more though. He wasn't playing the role of holding bowler when times were tough like Mcgrath sometimes did.

Longevity makes Mcgrath a greater bowler for me. But a pick for an ATG side is slightly different. I wouldn't give Mcgrath a longevity boost to the same extent as guys like Imran and Hadlee who were being picked long before being fully developed on account of playing for teams that lacked options.

I give plenty points for consistency, so there's that. Also McGrath did extremely well in the 00s, as if nothing changed. Still Marshall slightly ahead though.

 

[kyear2]

The argument isn't whether they would make the team or not; the argument is whether they would do so completely UNANIMOUSLY. If you try to make a CW AT Team, I can tell you who it will in every single position.

Hobbs, Hutton, Don*, Sachin, Viv, Sobers, Gilly+, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

 

[subshakerz]

Longevity makes Mcgrath a greater bowler for me. But a pick for an ATG side is slightly different. I wouldn't give Mcgrath a longevity boost to the same extent as guys like Imran and Hadlee who were being picked long before being fully developed on account of playing for teams that lacked options.

I think guys like @kyear2 just ignore longevity and other factors for players they don't like.

For example, Imran Khan's bowling in the 90s should not be considered in his record at all. He was only playing as a bat since his team needed him.

I conceded this point when it was given for Ponting to explain why he stretched his career.

I choose Marshall over McGrath because he was more proven in the SC. McGrath still has questions for me.

 

[Bolo.]

I think guys like @kyear2 just ignore longevity and other factors for players they don't like.

For example, Imran Khan's bowling in the 90s should be considered in his record at all. He was only playing as a bat since his team needed him.

I conceded this point when it was given for Ponting to explain why he stretched his career.

I choose Marshall over McGrath because he was more proven in the SC. McGrath still has questions for me.

I'm not a fan of 100% scrubbing poor phases from careers, even when I recognize that they are being unduly penalized by circumstances.

Imran is a different case though. He was still performing, just in a different role. Should probably ignore the impact his last years had on both his batting and bowling in the context of this thread.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Yeah sorry my point wasn’t really about that. More that when I think “lock” for an ATG team I think of a player who if not part of the team would considerably weaken the team - basically its unthinkable to have an ATG team without them. I think that applies to the 3 players mentioned but not to Marshall.

I’m not trying to denigrate him or anything - you know I also have him at #1, we’re just talking about slightly different things here.

Perhaps even a better way to put it - I’d find it quite hard to take an ATG XI seriously without those 3. I’d easily be able to take one without Marshall seriously.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah sorry my point wasn’t really about that. More that when I think “lock” for an ATG team I think of a player who if not part of the team would considerably weaken the team - basically its unthinkable to have an ATG team without them. I think that applies to the 3 players mentioned but not to Marshall.

I’m not trying to denigrate him or anything - you know I also have him at #1, we’re just talking about slightly different things here.

Perhaps even a better way to put it - I’d find it quite hard to take an ATG XI seriously without those 3. I’d easily be able to take one without Marshall seriously.

And I strenuously disagree, third name on the sheet, and before Gilchrist.

Not only was he the greatest and best bowler in the history of the game he was the pre presentative of one of the 4 great phenomenons in the history of the game.

Bradman
Sobers
The Quartet
McWarne

A representative of one of the two great teams in the history of the game.

Do I need to explain why he was the best ever?
He almost married Steyn's s/r to McGrath's e/r, he was a magician and the enforcer.

He paired express pace to exceptional skill and unparalleled intellect. He possessed banana swing and could control it in and away, he leaned the cutter from Lillee which made him effective on the most unresponsive of wickets. To quote, he all the tools and knew when and where to use them.
During his peak, even with incredible competition, he was a one man wrecking crew. He averaged sub 20 at almost 6 wpm both home and away and in every country bar NZ.
He conquered every team in every set of conditions possible possessing a record more complete than any in the 20th century, and somehow amongst retirements and declining giants, he lost two matches as an opening bowler and never a series. The matches he missed, the team lost.

What does he uniquely bring to an ATG XI? There was no doubt he's one of the three great opening bowlers, yet he was the only one of the 3 that tested your courage along with your technique. He could swing the ball in and away and was allied with a lethal skidding bouncer that claimed it's share of victims. Mike Getting for instance dell victim to the wizardry of Warne and the brutality of Marshall.

His destruction of India in '83 marked his entry into the world stage and heralded his taking over of the mantle of best in the world from DK Lillee. As Richards phrased it, he just wants a home warrior, he conquered the world over. Some didn't like their aggressive tactics, he once implored a batsman to get out before he had to come around the wicket and kill him, but they learned through defeat and mastered the art.
While all pacers made hay on helpful tracks, he also made his mark on roads, a particularly placid (I want to say Adelaide track), he tire into the Australian's where everyone else was ineffective, he succeeded on the Pakistani pitches that Lillee called barren and of course, India.

He didn't have to sacrifice pace, accuracy, economy or strike rate to flourish and he did all of this while facing no minnows in his career.

His batting while not as heralded, he was talented could have been more, but even so he was more that useful and he won or saved multiple matches for his team, stepping up when it was required most.

He was the spearhead and the leader of the greatest and most feared attack in the history of cricket and at the time the most dominant team. When he discovered weaknesses he corrected them, mastering the outswinger, knowing he couldn't be as dominant everywhere without it. He was as complete as any bowler ever with a better record than any.

Quite simply no one in the history of the game combined his pace, skill set, intangibles, numbers and complete record. And oh was he a match winner...

So yes, he's a ****ing lock IMHO

 

[Coronis]

And I strenuously disagree, third name on the sheet, and before Gilchrist.

Not only was he the greatest and best bowler in the history of the game he was the pre presentative of one of the 4 great phenomenons in the history of the game.

Bradman
Sobers
The Quartet
McWarne

A representative of one of the two great teams in the history of the game.

Do I need to explain why he was the best ever?
He almost married Steyn's s/r to McGrath's e/r, he was a magician and the enforcer.

He paired express pace to exceptional skill and unparalleled intellect. He possessed banana swing and could control it in and away, he leaned the cutter from Lillee which made him effective on the most unresponsive of wickets. To quote, he all the tools and knew when and where to use them.
During his peak, even with incredible competition, he was a one man wrecking crew. He averaged sub 20 at almost 6 wpm both home and away and in every country bar NZ.
He conquered every team in every set of conditions possible possessing a record more complete than any in the 20th century, and somehow amongst retirements and declining giants, he lost two matches as an opening bowler and never a series. The matches he missed, the team lost.

What does he uniquely bring to an ATG XI? There was no doubt he's one of the three great opening bowlers, yet he was the only one of the 3 that tested your courage along with your technique. He could swing the ball in and away and was allied with a lethal skidding bouncer that claimed it's share of victims. Mike Getting for instance dell victim to the wizardry of Warne and the brutality of Marshall.

His destruction of India in '83 marked his entry into the world stage and heralded his taking over of the mantle of best in the world from DK Lillee. As Richards phrased it, he just wants a home warrior, he conquered the world over. Some didn't like their aggressive tactics, he once implored a batsman to get out before he had to come around the wicket and kill him, but they learned through defeat and mastered the art.
While all pacers made hay on helpful tracks, he also made his mark on roads, a particularly placid (I want to say Adelaide track), he tire into the Australian's where everyone else was ineffective, he succeeded on the Pakistani pitches that Lillee called barren and of course, India.

He didn't have to sacrifice pace, accuracy, economy or strike rate to flourish and he did all of this while facing no minnows in his career.

His batting while not as heralded, he was talented could have been more, but even so he was more that useful and he won or saved multiple matches for his team, stepping up when it was required most.

He was the spearhead and the leader of the greatest and most feared attack in the history of cricket and at the time the most dominant team. When he discovered weaknesses he corrected them, mastering the outswinger, knowing he couldn't be as dominant everywhere without it. He was as complete as any bowler ever with a better record than any.

So yes, he's a ****ing lock IMHO

Could not have predicted you ignoring the point and launching into a Marshall rant. At all.

 

[subshakerz]

Could not have predicted you ignoring the point and launching into a Marshall rant. At all.

Yeah he does that. Literally nothing he wrote actually addresses the argument you made.

 

[subshakerz]

During his peak, even with incredible competition, he was a one man wrecking crew. He averaged sub 20 at almost 6 wpm both home and away and in every country bar NZ.
He conquered every team in every set of conditions possible possessing a record more complete than any in the 20th century, and somehow amongst retirements and declining giants, he lost two matches as an opening bowler and never a series. The matches he missed, the team lost.

Marshall was the best but you need to cool it down with the hype.

The way I see Marshall is that yes he had all the skills and tools, but he also had everything set up for him in a way no other bowler had in history: joined the greatest team at its peak, awesome scoreboard pressure, mostly great bowling conditions, generally poor quality batting lineups he thrived off, the best pace support in history, never facing his own formidable lineup, shorter duration career than the others all centered around his peak, and then pretty much defining his legacy with a handful of series in the mid-80s.

So I take him amped stats with a degree of caution. Any ATG would dream of having it lined up for him the way it was for Marshall to thrive.

 

[shortpitched713]

And the answer is no, they aren't. Only 2 of them are.

Kyear's agenda here is so transparent.

Fact is, there's a diversity of opinions here on CW on this topic. But he's going to twist the results of this poll to make it seem like there's a "correct" answer to this according to CW consensus.

For example, even though Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath are the most popular choices, and likely most common combination. That still sets aside that a majority of voters had one of Imran or Wasim in for their old ball exploits.

So no, there's no "right answer" for best picks. Heck, even the fact that Marshall has so many more votes than McGrath goes against his thoughts on tailend batting. Because CW voting consensus on bowling alone has them both as equal tops. Whereas this one has McGrath far, far behind Marshall.

My own opinion isn't as "crazy" as he's likely to try to color it to be. I see Marshall as being around 2-4 in the pace bowling rankings alongside Steyn and Hadlee, with McGrath as my GOAT. That being said, I think Hadlee and Imran are the most valuable players in this selection, at 2-4 and 6-9 in the pantheon respectively, and that has a lot to do with their batting (Hadlee slightly more valuable for mine).

Any of the bowlers listed here could be another fine choice, heck we can add Donald, even Garner, maybe Cummins when his career ends.

For me the choice was between McGrath, my GOAT, and Marshall who offers a hell of a lot more with the bat, even at 10 or 11. And yes, even though I have McGrath comfortably as my GOAT pace bowler, I believe it's touch and go because in truth every batting run matters. Went with McGrath in my usual contrarian style, in a poll that's really set up against him.