The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

Support act to Marlon Black and Nixon McLean in 00/01

 

[Slifer]

McGrath only had 2 more fifers than Beefy in a lot more matches too

Add Pollock to that. He took what 16 five fors and 1 ten for in 108 tests. I guess according to Bag, Beefy is better than pollock as well.

 

[Slifer]

McGrath basically never bothered with the tail.

Botham was the bigger match winner and on field personality than Walsh but Walsh had a better career as a bowler.

This thread has made me rethink Walsh a bit. I've always seen him as a dramatic step down from Curtley but maybe I'm interesting him a bit. I'd still pick half a dozen other West Indies quicks over him but perhaps he was better than I was giving him credit for. Tbf I mostly saw him play in Australia and he was definitely a support act over here.

Just look at his stats for a start. 500 wkts at 24. Walsh averaged sub 30 vs all teams (I'm not counting 3 tests vs SL). The only place he really struggled was away to Australia. Walsh's sr and wpm pale in comparison to his contemporaries because when Walsh came into the team in 84 in Australia he was the 4th bowler in an outstanding lineup. Invariably, Walsh got the older ball bowling into the wind and had very few wickets to take after his teammates had cleaned up ahead of him. Post I'd say 98 or so, walsh just got better and better. He had the new ball regularly and only Ambrose to compete with for wickets. I took '98 because that's when Bishop retired for good. That period is probably a true reflection of what Walsh should've been. In any event, the entire product was still a great career.

 

[mr_mister]

Along with Bishop the Benjamins were no longer there post 98 either

It's really sad how gradually the pace stocks dwindled. From having potential ATGs unable to find a place in the 80s(Croft and Clarke) to the 3rd and 4th seamers still being very threatening on their day in the 90s (Benjamins, Bishop and Patterson) to only Walsh and Ambrose with no support cast, then finally Walsh as an aging lone wolf in 2001

 

[Slifer]

And lol now look at what we have left. Holder and Roach are decent but afaic, they're home track bullies. Nothing more

 

[h_hurricane]

Support act to Marlon Black and Nixon McLean in 00/01

That was the first Aus-WI soulless series in living memory. The ones I remember before that, 1992-93,1995,1996-97,1999 all had epic contests.

 

[Logan]

Walsh : 519 wickets @ 24

Botham : 383 wickets @ 28

Pollock : 423 wickets @ 23

I would rate them in this order
1. Pollock
2. Walsh
3. Botham

This thread has made me rethink Walsh a bit. I've always seen him as a dramatic step down from Curtley .

That’s because Ambrose was one of Top 10 or even Top 5 fast bowlers of all time.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Support act to Marlon Black and Nixon McLean in 00/01

Marlon Black was a sight to behold...Cameron Cuffy was an underrated bowler though.

 

[Slifer]

Walsh : 519 wickets @ 24

Botham : 383 wickets @ 28

Pollock : 423 wickets @ 23

I would rate them in this order
1. Pollock
2. Walsh
3. Botham



That’s because Ambrose was one of Top 10 or even Top 5 fast bowlers of all time.

According to Bag, it should be Botham>Pollock>Walsh. I honestly think he's trolling at this point. Pollock > Walsh I can accept but not Botham

 

[Logan]

I wouldn’t place Botham among Top 5 England bowlers of all time.

 

[Slifer]

That's because botham isn't. Not even remotely close. FWIW walsh is probably outside a wi top 5 as well but who knows.

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding
????

Maybe Walsh is in the top 5 after all.

 

[bagapath]

McGrath only had 2 more fifers than Beefy in a lot more matches too

Shows how good beefy was in that part of his his career. Thanks for pointing it out. He was the most exciting cricketer and one of the greatest match winning bowlers in the world. Could be as good as Lillee or holding on his day. (Imran hadlee and Marshall attained greatness after 1982)

Also shows how ****** beefy was for the last third of his career. Falling from Barnes level to Mohammad Sami.

 

[bagapath]

Add Pollock to that. He took what 16 five fors and 1 ten for in 108 tests. I guess according to Bag, Beefy is better than pollock as well.

That’s right. But not just because of the fivefers. Garner is a giant of a bowler with just seven five fers

I rate Botham above pollock and Walsh because he ran through batting line ups more often than them. Shaun and Courtney are the ringo Starrs. Greatish. But one step below definitely great zone.

 

[Logan]

Marshall

Ambrose

Holding

Garner

Roberts

I would place Walsh as the sixth best WI bowler.

 

[bagapath]

I wouldn’t place Botham among Top 5 England bowlers of all time.

I don’t know your reasons. But most people who followed cricket in the late 70s and early 80s would disagree with that I assume.

 

[h_hurricane]

Excluding ancient species,

Trueman
Statham
Willis
Snow
Anderson

 

[bagapath]

Definitely inferior to Beefy in their core strength XI (the last 40 years)

Mike Atherton
John Wright
Nasser Hussein
Kim Hughes (c)
Ramnaresh Sarwan
Shaun Pollock (AR)
Jason Gillespie
James Anderson
Shoaib Akhtar
Courtney Walsh
Wicket keeper +

 

[trundler]

Surely Barnes can't be excluded at all?

 

[bagapath]

Excluding ancient species,

Trueman
Statham
Willis
Snow
Anderson

I would slot him well after
Trueman
Laker

And immediately behind
Snow

Followed by Bedser

That would be my post WW2 English top 5

 

[h_hurricane]

Surely Barnes can't be excluded at all?

Have only considered bowlers debuted after 1950. Players before that are incomparable for several reasons.