The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

At least 5 middle order bats have the genuine claim to be the second-best batsman ever

No one ever claimed otherwise.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Sample size dude. And the fact that he was also injured during this particular series. But for schitts and giggles, even if you include that, his stats still are more complete than his competitors: McGrath averaged 29 in SL and 31 in Pakistan, Hadlee 28 overall vs Pakistan and 45 in Pakistan, Steyn 31 vs England, 27 vs Oz/SL, + 30 in UAE, SL and England etc. But use whatever parameters you like Marshall still went sub 23 vs all comers, SR under 50 vs all comers overall and sub 25 away vs everyone except for NZ.

Marshall while a great bowler was a part of a great team of bowlers. They hunted in packs. He was extremely skilled. But to remove him from the others and say he’s a great without is not the whole story.
Statistically, Garner is also sub 25.4 everywhere against everyone. No exceptions. Stats don’t tell the full story.

 

[mr_mister]

No one ever claimed otherwise.

The post I was replying to said you wouldn't even need to bowl him because he demands a spot on batting alone.

 

[kyear2]

This is initially what I was referring to, I didn’t realise he had played against them elsewhere. Also, why are we not counting that?

Because you are ignoring his overall average against them and using a small sample size of 3 in one test series and if I recall correctly he was injured in that series.

This is really clutching at straws.

 

[mr_mister]

Couldn't Hammond as a 5th bowler be nearly as viable as Sobers - especially if we consider you'd want them to be bowling as little as possible in this hypothetical match(why give the opposition anything less than ATG bowlers to face tbh, bowlers who are anything less could release pressure).

Both have a near equal case as batsmen to justify selection. One thing in Sobers favour was that he played so much of his career at 6 so he'd slot nicely there where as with Hammond he would likely be batting out of position - though your 5 would basically always be a batsman out of position unless you decide Steve Waugh is worthy due to him being the arguable best ever number 5

Food for thought

 

[kyear2]

The post I was replying to said you wouldn't even need to bowl him because he demands a spot on batting alone.

I never said that. In 1 post I said arguably 2nd best and at worse doesn't make it outside the top 5 after Bradman.

The other post I said based on his batting, slip fielding and bowling he demands a place.

 

[mr_mister]

I never said that. In 1 post I said arguably 2nd best and at worse doesn't make it outside the top 5 after Bradman.

The other post I said based on his batting, slip fielding and bowling he demands a place.

I was responding to hurricane not you

 

[Slifer]

Marshall while a great bowler was a part of a great team of bowlers. They hunted in packs. He was extremely skilled. But to remove him from the others and say he’s a great without is not the whole story.
Statistically, Garner is also sub 25.4 everywhere against everyone. No exceptions. Stats don’t tell the full story.

Malcolm Marshall statistically or otherwise is the most complete fast bowler of all time. No other bowler that I can think of goes at sub 23 and strikes under 50 vs all comers. And also goes sub 25 in all countries. And his stats are not propped up by playing minnows either; just imagine if he'd played the SL team of his time....

 

[mr_mister]

He got to play 80s England and Australia

 

[h_hurricane]

To be honest,if you pick Garner or Ambrose instead of Marshall, you lose almost nothing. You get someone a bit more mean, though a bit less destructive.

I would still pick Marshall because I thought he was the best and I have the option to pick him, not because there is anything more than a width of hair strand separating him with the others.

 

[mr_mister]

Wasim
Ambrose
Murali
Donald

Marshall
Warne
Steyn
McGrath

Hadlee
Holding
O'Reilly
Garner


These 3 attacks would be equally adept at demolishing opposition batting lineups - you may as well choose the blokes who have the actions you find most pleasing to the eye

 

[Slifer]

Wasim
Ambrose
Murali
Donald

Marshall
Warne
Steyn
McGrath

Hadlee
Holding
O'Reilly
Garner


These 3 attacks would be equally adept at demolishing opposition batting lineups - you may as well choose the blokes who have the actions you find most pleasing to the eye

But based on career numbers for example, you probably wouldn't want to play a Murali or a Warne in India. And since 3 tests is a big enough sample size (all of a sudden) you wouldn't want to play McGrath in Pakistan. But Sir Marshall you can take anywhere vs any team and he'd do well...except in NZ apparently. Ok ok at this point I'm trolling lol. You're point is valid....

 

[Logan]

I would take the second team.

Marshall was the most complete. Steyn was the best wicket taker. McGrath was the most relentless and could get the best batsmen out.

 

[mr_mister]

The second team is the one CW would always choose yes

But realistically all 3 could win matches 99 times out of 100

 

[Logan]

The second team has the guy with the best average and best strike rate.

 

[mr_mister]

Same logic

Hutton
Gavaskar
Bradman
Headley
Sachin
Sobers


Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Lara
Viv
Hammond

 

[Logan]

First team with the exception of Headley who played just 20 odd matches

 

[mr_mister]

You're not meant to be choosing lol. Both teams post 600 every match they play

 

[kyear2]

The second team is the one CW would always choose yes

But realistically all 3 could win matches 99 times out of 100

Yes, but you can't pretend that the 2nd team is undeniably better.

 

[kyear2]

Couldn't Hammond as a 5th bowler be nearly as viable as Sobers - especially if we consider you'd want them to be bowling as little as possible in this hypothetical match(why give the opposition anything less than ATG bowlers to face tbh, bowlers who are anything less could release pressure).

Both have a near equal case as batsmen to justify selection. One thing in Sobers favour was that he played so much of his career at 6 so he'd slot nicely there where as with Hammond he would likely be batting out of position - though your 5 would basically always be a batsman out of position unless you decide Steve Waugh is worthy due to him being the arguable best ever number 5

Food for thought

Yes, he is almost as viable. Not quite the batsman for me, but not that far away, equally adept in the slips but not as willing or effective or versatile a bowler. But yes, Hammond and Kallis are all viable alternatives if Sobers isn't available.