Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[subshakerz]

Fair enough, just for reference, if one says Lillee>Steyn, I won't be weirded out at all.

I think Lillee was likely a better bowler than Steyn and roughly as skilled as others in the top tier but just denied the opportunities.

 

[kyear2]

I think Adam Gilchrist comes ahead of any bowler while picking AT XI tbh.

I would pick both Hobbs and Tendulkar before Marshall tbf, alongside Gilchrist.

Probably responded to these already so will combine both of these to one post.

To address the Gilchrist point, the importance of the fast bowling position alone guarantees a bowler over Gilly.

Gilchrist while he's a near certainty for me, isn't one overall. There's one keeper spot and many would prefer and fo for the stronger keeper, Knott.
Even for the Cricinfo team, one of the editorials released along with it, critiqued only two of the selections. Gilly being one of such critiques, not based on his skill set of course, but that, for a team with such batting and bowling, surely the better and more skilled keeper can be chosen. Kimber and Bumble came to the same conclusion for their composite team recently and of course Knott was the preferred selection for the Wisden team.

With regards to Sachin or Hobbs, you're picking 4 batsmen before your strike bowler? Don't see how that makes the least amount of sense.

The way the (random number here) selection on the team sheet goes, is that if it's the first, that's the one player you take if you're given one guarantee pick, same with 2nd and 3rd.

So from the way I see it, for a team where you already have Bradman and Sobers, as your first two picks and you have only 3 guaranteed selections, as again the 3rd name on a sheet reflects / intimates, you're 3rd is less likely to be another batsman? And not over the player deemed to be the greatest ever, and at the most critical and important position on your or any cricket team... your opening fast bowler.

When I did a composite of AT teams years ago, of the 18 teams selected, two players were unanimous, the obvious Bradman and Sobers. After them, missing one team was Hobbs, Marshall and Warne.

Even when we select our XIs, Marshall is always unanimous or all but, and the highest vote getter, or 2nd if Bradman is placed on the ballot. While here, Warne is one of the most closely contested final names on the sheet.

In any event, I don't believe that anyone's choosing their wicketkeeper over their premier fast bowler, not this team or any.

And when you combine, slam dunk you're guaranteed to make the team, even possibly unanimously, greatness and value of position, while looking at the names already selected, it's Marshall or Hobbs (though he doesn't make mine).
And with all the conversations on this forum that end with, opening fast bowlers are the match winners and the most valuable members of any team, why is the notion that the greatest of them being the 3rd name on the sheet not viable?

 

[subshakerz]

Someone tell him to stop writing essays.

 

[Coronis]

Well, my POV is gap between Gilly and the next choice >>> gap between Marshall and the next choice.

In terms of overall skill for a keeper bat you could easily argue the gap between Gilly and the next player being as large as the gap between the #1 and #15 pacer.

So I lose more if I don’t pick Gilly.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, my POV is gap between Gilly and the next choice >>> gap between Marshall and the next choice.

In terms of overall skill for a keeper bat you could easily argue the gap between Gilly and the next player being as large as the gap between the #1 and #15 pacer.

So I lose more if I don’t pick Gilly.

Yeah Gilly is just a fixture at this point in the ATG XI. He is simply perfectly suited as no.7. Marshall is more debatable. For example, you could have an attack of Hadlee, McGrath and Steyn/Imran and argue Marshall is not a big loss.

 

[kyear2]

Well, my POV is gap between Gilly and the next choice >>> gap between Marshall and the next choice.

In terms of overall skill for a keeper bat you could easily argue the gap between Gilly and the next player being as large as the gap between the #1 and #15 pacer.

So I lose more if I don’t pick Gilly.

I'm NFL terms you can have a guard that's way better than any other guard, you're still not choosing him over your quarter back.

While I understand your perspective my counters are

1. Marshall is a more guaranteed lock for selection.

2. Marshall played a more important position / role.

And my perspective is different.

First name on the team sheet means that if you can only have one player, 2nd name, 2 players etc.
Hence the 3rd name / 3rd pick, so you're saying that if you can only select 3 players and that choice is Gilchrist?

And while Gilly has an advance over Knott as a batsman, Knott has a substantial lead over him as a keeper as well.

And there's a greater likely hood of Gilchrist not making such a team than Marshall, with Gilly having a viable rival in Knott, who has actually made such teams ahead of Gilchrist. It's not just a hypothetical.

 

[Coronis]

I'm NFL terms you can have a guard that's way better than any other guard, you're still not choosing him over your quarter back.

While I understand your perspective my counters are

1. Marshall is a more guaranteed lock for selection.

2. Marshall played a more important position / role.

And my perspective is different.

First name on the team sheet means that if you can only have one player, 2nd name, 2 players etc.
Hence the 3rd name / 3rd pick, so you're saying that if you can only select 3 players and that choice is Gilchrist?

And while Gilly has an advance over Knott as a batsman, Knott has a substantial lead over him as a keeper as well.

And there's a greater likely hood of Gilchrist not making such a team than Marshall, with Gilly having a viable rival in Knott, who has actually made such teams ahead of Gilchrist. It's not just a hypothetical.

Yes.

McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim etc. are far more viable rivals for Marshall than Knott is for Gilly. The difference is Marshall is competing for 3 spots, Gilly is competing for 1 spot.

 

[kyear2]

Yes.

McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim etc. are far more viable rivals for Marshall than Knott is for Gilly. The difference is Marshall is competing for 3 spots, Gilly is competing for 1 spot.

There are 3 fast bowlers in a team and hardly any of them actually makes it ahead of Marshall.

You don't see Knott as a rival, but he's actually made more AT teams ahead of Gilchrist than any of the others have made ahead of Marshall.

 

[DrWolverine]

Adam Gilchrist is the best WK batsman at number 7

But if primary discipline is important, I can see Alan Knott being picked ahead of him in ATG team.

 

[Coronis]

There are 3 fast bowlers in a team and hardly any of them actually makes it ahead of Marshall.

You don't see Knott as a rival, but he's actually made more AT teams ahead of Gilchrist than any of the others have made ahead of Marshall.

So? I’m not blindly following what others say or choose.

Do you actually think that Knott is closer to Gilly than the other pacers are to Marshall?

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yes.

McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim etc. are far more viable rivals for Marshall than Knott is for Gilly. The difference is Marshall is competing for 3 spots, Gilly is competing for 1 spot.

Mcgrath and Hadlee yes on bowling alone. Imran no. He's not in the same class as Marshall neither are Ambrose or Steyn. They're just below imo. Ditto Wasim. Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath are the Sachin level as bowlers imo.

 

[Coronis]

Mcgrath and Hadlee yes on bowling alone. Imran no. He's not in the same class as Marshall neither are Ambrose or Steyn. They're just below imo. Ditto Wasim. Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath are the Sachin level as bowlers imo.

They’re far closer to Marshall than Knott is to Gilchrist

 

[Sliferxxxx]

They’re far closer to Marshall than Knott is to Gilchrist

Well yeah.

 

[Coronis]

Well yeah.

Yeah that’s the whole point, you lose far less picking one of them compared to picking Knott or someone else over Gilly.

 

[subshakerz]

They’re far closer to Marshall than Knott is to Gilchrist

Not only that but because there are three pacer role you could create an attack without Marshall and justify it in which Imran or Ambrose would be more important. For example, if my focus is control I may want Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose.

 

[Randomfan]

Not only that but because there are three pacer role you could create an attack without Marshall and justify it in which Imran or Ambrose would be more important. For example, if my focus is control I may want Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose.

Marshall wasn't really going for too many runs.

Marshall ER - 2.6
Hadlee ER - 2.6

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall wasn't really going for too many runs.

Marshall ER - 2.6
Hadlee ER - 2.6

Dude this is a hypothetical. I have Marshall in my attack.

 

[kyear2]

Adam Gilchrist is the best WK batsman at number 7

But if primary discipline is important, I can see Alan Knott being picked ahead of him in ATG team.

Which is a more than reasonable take.

And, importantly...

Has happened.

 

[kyear2]

They’re far closer to Marshall than Knott is to Gilchrist

This is the crazy part though.

Why is Knott chosen over Gilchrist then?

While I've never once seen Hadlee chosen over Marshall?

You and I will obviously disagree on this one. But Gilchrist actively doesn't make AT teams, because many prefer the better keeper. You're actively ignoring that point. Both of them really.

Up until recently you had Marshall as your bowler 1. But even at 2 he makes the team and as the team no. 1.
He also brings a combination of skillet and all round record unmatched in the game's history.

Last time we did a world XI, 3 years ago Bradman was given an automatic selection, Marshall was unanimous then Gilly was next in line. No one else came close to them with Hobbs then Tendulkar being closer than anyone else.

It was even suggested that all three of Sobers, Marshall and Gilchrist be also made automatic inclusions, another rooster added Hobbs to that list, though his inclusion was less unanimous.

But TJB made this interesting point.

Agree, given that you have 3 fast bowling spots Marshall should be a lock. Gilchrist probably should too, however there's a potential situation where someone might want to pick a "pure keeper" specialist for some reason.

And again, and it can't be stressed enough, it has happened. Wisden's no less, and an argument was even made of the Cricinfo's selection for same Knott.

Here's an entire video arguing the merits of both.

Your argument is that there are two bowlers close to Marshall, sure, but they aren't better or could fill the roles he does.

Not to add the value of the two positions are worlds apart.

Again, if you can only have 3 players from an AT XI to form the core of a team, and this is a direct question, is Gilchrist your 3rd and final choice?

Or is the world's greatest fast bowler who could bat a bit?

 

[DrWolverine]

Gilchrist actively doesn't make AT teams, because many prefer the better keeper.

Gilchrist is chosen because he is the best wicket keeper batsman at number 7 position.

If those extra few runs are worth more than picking a better wicker keeper, by that logic Hadlee should be picked ahead of Marshall as well.

By the same logic, should we pick someone like Jacques Kallis at number 4 ahead of pure batsmen like Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards?