Ambrose or Mcgrath?

[smash84]

I would take this attack and just replace Imran with McGrath. Overall, gives better variety and depth, I think. Plus, his record in India is good. Imran is of course, as good a selection.

With old ball Imran was a monster on placid tracks. Could run through batting line ups with those 90mph in dippers. In the SC better than McG

 

[kyear2]

Yeah they'd be more four too, not necessarily in that order. I'd always pick Imran as one of my bowlers in my ATWXI due to the aforementioned "allrounder fetish" but those four are IMO the best four Test bowlers of all time, with O'Reilly probably fifth. Ambrose is probably next up.

Murali, Marshall, Barnes and Hadlee were probably among the most effective bowlers in history (along with Trueman, Donald and McGrath), but no one fully understands what Barnes bowled and he basically padded his stats vs (relatively weak) S.A on the matting pitches that ideally fitted his bowling and doesn't exist anymore. Murali was probably marginally ahead of Warne overall as a spinner, but out side of the S.C. would probably still take Warne and his batting and slip catching pushes him over Murali for me because as bowlers they were so close with Warne being equally as effective in Sri Lanka and they both suffered at the hands of Lara and Sachin and co. Not sure what Hadlee gives us that McGrath doesn't as a bowler and Glenn had a better well rounded record everywhere and was just as consistent but for longer and was more accurate and for me relied less on pitches for assistance. For me he is a clear winner over Hadlee. To replace Barnes one of the reverse swing bowlers from Pakistan would give the attack some more pace and variety than utilizing any two of Barnes/McGrath/Hadlee.

imo McGrath is the best specialist bowler of all time but he doesn't make my all time eleven.

if you think pews has an allrounder fetish then im the guy with the hushed up addiction

If he is your best ever bowler he should make your AT XI, no one picks their openers based on if they could bowl, at least your opening bowlers IHMO should be selected purely as bowlers. Don't understand the All Rounder obsession, ideally the #8 should be able to bat and in a best case scenario it's a bonus if your #9 can as well, but at least two of your bowlers should be your top rated bowlers, as the bowlers job is primarily take 20 wickets as quickly as possible, for as little runs as possible and be able to do so in all conditions, not to specifically support the batting lineup or prop up the team if the batters fail. If it is close like Murali and Warne then I will always choose Warne (Warne also brings his slip catching), and yes a balance is required as I stated above, but if McGrath is your clear No.1 fast bowler then surely he can find a place at No. 11.

The best selected bowling attacks I have seen is

Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes (Boycott)
Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee (Cricinfo)
Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath (CW/mine )

Boycott's I like from a historical but not practical perspective, depends on if an AT XI is selected based on your career or if you are actually being selected as part of the best possible attack to take on Mars. From a career and anecdotal perspective the attack is perfect.

For Cricinfo's, it's a role based team selection and it's equally brilliant from that perspective. They are many among the Anglo/Australian media and historian group that rate Lillee the best ever, Marshall for an equal many is (correctly ) rated the best ever and they will share the new ball, Akran isn't better than many of the possible contenders for the third slot, but he is, possibly along with Imran (and Garner with his yorkers and rib searchers) the best old ball bowler who adds the LH component, his magic deliveries and his innate ability to mow down the tail, him along with Warne would be devastating with the old ball, and Marshall also enjoyed bowling with the old ball and could reverse it and use his cutters, there would be no respite with the old and Marshall and Lillee with the new would be irresistible and terrifying (also why I selected Watson's team the best from the last draft).

The CW selected team though is more balanced, from a peer and anecdotal perspective Lillee was highly rated, in every other way though McGrath comes out on top. He was accurate, probing and unrelenting. Statistically the best opening attack was Marshall and Garner, due in part I believe to their contrasting styles, Garner's height and his accuracy. McGrath brings all of that and more and him and Marshall though not as terrifying as Lillee and Marshall would be even more penetrating and irresistable. Marshall's searing pace and swing and McGrath accuracy and seam movement would be too much for any batsman. Imran was good an old ball bowler as Wasim, and while he didn't bring the LH variety that Akram provided he was the overall better bowler and the best ever bowling all rounder and his batting is a huge plus at #8. His reverse swing and early fearsome pace compliments McGrath and Marshall brilliantly and would equally as effective as Wasim with Warne, though Akram did have that extra magic as well.
This attack gives brilliant batting depth down to 10 and Warne allows flexibility as a great slipper as well and it's also as strong an attack as can possibly be collected with pace, seam, swing, spin and reverse swing being covered.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Murali, Marshall, Barnes and Hadlee were probably among the most effective bowlers in history (along with Trueman, Donald and McGrath), but no one fully understands what Barnes bowled and he basically padded his stats vs (relatively weak) S.A on the matting pitches that ideally fitted his bowling and doesn't exist anymore. Murali was probably marginally ahead of Warne overall as a spinner, but out side of the S.C. would probably still take Warne and his batting and slip catching pushes him over Murali for me because as bowlers they were so close with Warne being equally as effective in Sri Lanka and they both suffered at the hands of Lara and Sachin and co. Not sure what Hadlee gives us that McGrath doesn't as a bowler and Glenn had a better well rounded record everywhere and was just as consistent but for longer and was more accurate and for me relied less on pitches for assistance. For me he is a clear winner over Hadlee. .

Not sure what I'm missing, but Hadlee averaged LOWER than his career average in both india and aus. Definitely not fair to say he relied on pitches for assistance at all, he wrecked everywhere just like McGrath.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not sure what Hadlee gives us that McGrath doesn't as a bowler and Glenn had a better well rounded record everywhere and was just as consistent but for longer and was more accurate and for me relied less on pitches for assistance.

What's the basis for this claim? I didn't watch Hadlee bowl, but Hadlee sees to have as good a record as McGrath everywhere he played. There's nothing really in their records at all to draw any inferences as to who relied on assistance from pitches more

 

[akilana]

What's the basis for this claim? I didn't watch Hadlee bowl, but Hadlee sees to have as good a record as McGrath everywhere he played. There's nothing really in their records at all to draw any inferences as to who relied on assistance from pitches more

Get used this kind of rubbish

 

[kyear2]

Get used this kind of rubbish

And besides your snide comments, how do you contribute to this forum.

Not saying Hadlee was a poor bowler, not by any means. Just feel McGrath has the better record and was the better bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that but I'm pretty sure I know what it says and we've had this debate many times before. I cbf so I'm going to condense this.

-There is minimal difference in bowling quality between any of the names you wrote up there. I don't care what CW or cricinfo eleven you've listed, the decade of vs threads on here has only reinforced my impression no one can say for certain the exact rankings of the top 10-15 bowlers.
-Some of the greatest bowlers ever can bat pretty well. Lower order batting almost always plays a role in real life cricket, so when picking teams for imaginary cricket if I can't separate two players on their primary skill I look at the batting/bowling and fielding. Warne easily makes my side because he can hold a bat and he can field at slip.

 

[Prince EWS]

Warne easily makes my side because he can hold a bat and he can field at slip.

I've always found it strange that this is such a sociably acceptable reason to include Warne over Murali even though he'd bat 9 or 10 and yet if people bring it up to justify Hadlee's inclusion over McGrath it's somehow ideologically reprehensible, despite the fact that the Hadlee-McGrath batting gap is much, much larger than the Warne-Murali batting gap.

Just to clarify, I'm not intending to make this a Warne/Murali bowling debate and this is in no way actually aimed at people who think Warne is better than Murali on bowling alone as the double standard then no longer applies.

 

[ankitj]

Kyear has come around on some cricketers, but his posts on Hadlee continue to buy piss annoying. Hadlee has as complete a record as any. He did it with a very little support and for so long. He also had an insane period of sub 20 average period. What else must he do, I wonder.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

What else must he do, I wonder.

be 5 inches taller/15kph quicker and not be from nz

 

[kyear2]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that but I'm pretty sure I know what it says and we've had this debate many times before. I cbf so I'm going to condense this.

-There is minimal difference in bowling quality between any of the names you wrote up there. I don't care what CW or cricinfo eleven you've listed, the decade of vs threads on here has only reinforced my impression no one can say for certain the exact rankings of the top 10-15 bowlers.
-Some of the greatest bowlers ever can bat pretty well. Lower order batting almost always plays a role in real life cricket, so when picking teams for imaginary cricket if I can't separate two players on their primary skill I look at the batting/bowling and fielding. Warne easily makes my side because he can hold a bat and he can field at slip.

Good that you can comment on something you haven't read. There are 3 lines on Hadlee and they are in relation to that if you are selecting an AT XI, why would you not include who you believe is the best bowler to play the game. When you have Imran, Marshall and Warne then surely you can include who you believe to be the best bowler at # 11. You are not going to exclude Bradman or who ever you rate as the second best batsman or even Hobbs because the can't bowl or field in the slips. Should be an equal criteria for selection, and yes a compromise of some selection based on secondary skills, but not at every position and not in my opinion neccecary at No.11 or your top 4 batsmen.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear has come around on some cricketers, but his posts on Hadlee continue to buy piss annoying. Hadlee has as complete a record as any. He did it with a very little support and for so long. He also had an insane period of sub 20 average period. What else must he do, I wonder.

My opinion has come around on many cricketers including Hadlee and Pollock, I believe Hadlee is an amazing fast bowler, not top 5, but up there. I believe though that McGrath is the clear number 2 fast bowler and bowler to have played the game and I wouldn't exclude him from my team considering he is batting at No. 11 and not his primary responsibility to bat.
So it's nothing to do with a disrespect for Hadlee, he was an ATG bowler, McGrath was just better IMHO and that is an opinion shared by many. There are some who think McGrath is the best period. If he is the best he should make the team.
If I were to select a reserve opener, middle order bat, pacer, keeper and spinner for my first team to form a squad it would be Gavaskar (just over Barry Richards), Lara, Knott, Muralitharan and Hadlee (just over Lillee even though lillee's pace would be useful). So I don't think I under rate Hadlee.

 

[smash84]

Good that you can comment on something you haven't read. There are 3 lines on Hadlee and they are in relation to that if you are selecting an AT XI, why would you not include who you believe is the best bowler to play the game. When you have Imran, Marshall and Warne then surely you can include who you believe to be the best bowler at # 11. You are not going to exclude Bradman or who ever you rate as the second best batsman or even Hobbs because the can't bowl or field in the slips. Should be an equal criteria for selection, and yes a compromise of some selection based on secondary skills, but not at every position and not in my opinion neccecary at No.11 or your top 4 batsmen.

But that is what PEWS pointed out earlier. You include Warne in your AT XI because you find it difficult to separate Murali and Warne in terms of bowling and hence defer to Warne's superior batting and slip fielding. It might be argued that the difference in bowling quality that between Warne and Murali is greater than there is between McGrath and Hadlee. While the difference in batting ability of Hadlee and McGrath is huge. Why then not pick Hadlee. You just seem to be using different criteria for different players then. Seems like an exercise to get in favorites rather than a genuine attempt to come up with an AT XI

 

[kyear2]

But that is what PEWS pointed out earlier. You include Warne in your AT XI because you find it difficult to separate Murali and Warne in terms of bowling and hence defer to Warne's superior batting and slip fielding. It might be argued that the difference in bowling quality that between Warne and Murali is greater than there is between McGrath and Hadlee. While the difference in batting ability of Hadlee and McGrath is huge. Why then not pick Hadlee. You just seem to be using different criteria for different players then. Seems like an exercise to get in favorites rather than a genuine attempt to come up with an AT XI

I genuinely belive the difference in bowling difference between Murali and Warne is minimal at best and Warne may be the better bowler outside of the Sub Continent, hence the difference for choosing Warne over Murali comes down to his slip catching and batting (in that order). McGrath is for me clearly ahead of Hadlee as a bowler and hence no need for a tie breaker. I will select the better bowler. And Pidgeon is not a favorite of mine or Warne. Just simply the best fits for the team for myself and many others. What I am saying is not controversial in anyway.

Additionall if Hadlee makes the team it's at the expense of Imran, not McGrath or Marshall. And Imran brings more to the table with his reverse swing and effectiveness in the sub continent. Out side of the SC though Paddles may make it over Imran. In no scenario though does their respective batting stats come into the decision.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My opinion has come around on many cricketers including Hadlee and Pollock, I believe Hadlee is an amazing fast bowler, not top 5, but up there. I believe though that McGrath is the clear number 2 fast bowler and bowler to have played the game and I wouldn't exclude him from my team considering he is batting at No. 11 and not his primary responsibility to bat.
So it's nothing to do with a disrespect for Hadlee, he was an ATG bowler, McGrath was just better IMHO and that is an opinion shared by many. There are some who think McGrath is the best period. If he is the best he should make the team.
If I were to select a reserve opener, middle order bat, pacer, keeper and spinner for my first team to form a squad it would be Gavaskar (just over Barry Richards), Lara, Knott, Muralitharan and Hadlee (just over Lillee even though lillee's pace would be useful). So I don't think I under rate Hadlee.

Look this is not about disrespecting any cricketer. It's about backing up your opinions with reasons, otherwise it's just BS. You said that he believes McGrath is a better bowler than Hadlee... No problem with having that opinion... You also said you believe that Hadlee relied more on assistance from the pitch than McGrath did... No problems with having that opinion either. But you didn't say WHY... Without stating any reasons for stating that Hadlee was a bowler more reliant on assistance from pitches, other than "I believe so" the claim is completely empty and baseless, don't you think

 

[kyear2]

Look this is not about disrespecting any cricketer. It's about backing up your opinions with reasons, otherwise it's just BS. You said that he believes McGrath is a better bowler than Hadlee... No problem with having that opinion... You also said you believe that Hadlee relied more on assistance from the pitch than McGrath did... No problems with having that opinion either. But you didn't say WHY... Without stating any reasons for stating that Hadlee was a bowler more reliant on assistance from pitches, other than "I believe so" the claim is completely empty and baseless, don't you think

I made a post of more that 30 lines, yet the fixation is on two of them that included Hadlee. If the entire post was read it explains why I rate McGrath higher than anyone bar Marshall and why I like the attacks that were mentioned.

The peer and historical consensus was that the best bowler of the '70's was Lillee, the best bowler of the '80's was Marshall the 90's was more split with Ambrose and McGrath getting the nod for many along with Warne and Murali. For the 2000's, the first part of the decade up until his retirement McGrath was clearly the number one fast bowler in the world, all over the world. He has the most wickets of any fast bowler in history and maintained his consistency and dominance for 14 years in a gradually changing environment where at one point he stood alone as the only great fast bowler in operation.
Even on CW in conversations of who is the best fast bowlers almost every one places McGrath over Hadlee, there are too many different threads and posts to mention, the last one being http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/60440-top-10-batsmen-bowlers-all-time.html where even Flem states that he thinks McGrath is the best ever. Any arguments on CW or most places as to who is the best revolves around Lillee, Marshall, McGrath and rarely sometimes Ambrose and Trueman. Hadlee is hardly ever seriously included in that discussion and the perception is that he excelled on helpful surfaces and didn't have a plan B on placid tracks. He played all but 13 of his matches in N.Z, Australia and England, yes where most bowlers excelled.

When one looks at some of the other teams selected by journalists, bloggers and historians I have never seen Hadlee make any, McGrath only makes some, and time may or may not change that but as far as I am concerned McGrath and Tendulkar because of the volume of their numbers and the consistency of their careers and the fact that they succeeded everywhere over those years and the way the played the game they have earned to be included in any ATG XI, even though I personally prefer Lara for at least a couple reasons over SRT.

Finally everyone on this forum has opinions that are and aren't substantiated, and mine has been repeatedly, yet I am continuously asked to justify my own opinions, and contrary to Alikina and sometimes Smali comments, I don't state them as facts I state them as my opinion. Which I am allowed to have and express on a cricket forum.

Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Bleacher
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Miller, Imran, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Benaud
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

Harsh Thakor
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Akram, Marshall, Lillee

The Roar
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Marshall, Lillee, McGrath

 

[hendrix]

There are mitigating circumstances to McGrath's dominance in the early 2000s - an ATG team, relatively weak opposition (really only SA, and perhaps India in India and the obligatory occasional Pakistan glimmer were that difficult opposition at that time).

For me Marshall seperates himself from the pack but I don't see that for McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose - the next best of the modern players.

That said, I agree with most of your rationale and do like your team. If you think McGrath is clearly better than Hadlee or Ambrose then yes, you can make the case that he should be included.

 

[Red]

There are mitigating circumstances to McGrath's dominance in the early 2000s - an ATG team, relatively weak opposition (really only SA, and perhaps India in India and the obligatory occasional Pakistan glimmer were that difficult opposition at that time).

For me Marshall seperates himself from the pack but I don't see that for McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose - the next best of the modern players.

That said, I agree with most of your rationale and do like your team. If you think McGrath is clearly better than Hadlee or Ambrose then yes, you can make the case that he should be included.

How does Marshall separate himself from the pack while McGrath doesn't? That doesn't really make sense to me. Especially considering the criteria you've used to separate them:

- Played in an ATG team? So did Marshall. And I still don't believe that playing in a great team makes you a better bowler or a lesser bowler.

- Relatively weak opposition? McGrath bowled against the greatest Indian batting line up in India's history. He bowled against a fairly strong SA. Marshall bowled against Australian and English basket case teams in the 80s. India had Gavaskar and Vengsarker and nothing else. NZ had Crowe and no one else.


I'd actually argue that McGrath separated himself from his peers further than Marshall did. Marshall's fast bowling teammates (Garner & Holding) are a lot closer to Marshall in terms of stats than Gillespie/Lee/Kaspa are to McGrath.

 

[Flem274*]

McGrath bowled in an era of relative roady mcroads where a batting average of 50 was the new 40.

 

[ankitj]

Kyear - how do you say Hadlee relied on pitch assistance? His bowling average and strike rate in subcontinent are better than Marshall and McGrath. See this story: Stats analysis: Richard Hadlee | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo. You would argue that it is because of the exceptional 12.29 average in SL, but he also averages about the same as his overall average in India. Only in Pakistan he has a poor average but that's because he played only one series there in 1976, which was before 1978 at which time he developed into a champion bowler. Even against India, he played one series in 1976 where he averages 35 or so. In the other series he played in India in 80's, he averaged a ridiculous 14.xx. So how exactly do you make your argument?

It's interesting that you gloss over Lillee's record in Pakistan. If the silly small sample size of Lillee's salvages him, then take out Hadlee's 3 matches in Pakistan too which is the only dark spot in his record.

It is actually quite surprising that Hadlee doesn't get the same amount of praise from "experts" as Lillee and Marshall do. Hadlee's record is just extra ordinary for following reasons:

• Stats. Just great, anyway you look at it. Did it against everyone and all over the world.
• Tremendous impact that he had on NZ cricket. Last time when I looked at series by series performances, IIRC Hadlee was the leading wicket taker on either side in 8 out of the 9 NZ test series victories against strong oppositions (excluding SL). And this includes at least one series against each of the 5 main oppositions.
• Longevity. He played for 17 years, and till he was 39. He was mighty effective till the very end. In this respect, one can argue that he outdid Marshall comfortably. Marshall played for 13 years, and only till he was 33.

With a resume like this, I don't see how he can be put in anything but the top bracket. For mine, the second best fast bowler after Marshall (don't know what Barnes classifies as so keeping him out) just ahead of Ambrose and McGrath.