I was always taught that a score of 4/240-60 during the course of a days play is an even result between bat and ball. But I have no recollection where that piece of 'conventional wisdom' comes from. Sounds reasonable though. And of course I picked 255 because that is the coincidental score that South Africa made yesterday.So random to say they'd be 4/255!
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
It feels as though we are stuck in an infinite loop with no way out.......Feel like your Gambhiring, but I always think 4/234 is even, but that's not at the end of the day, just a point in the match. Against quality batting teams 4 man attacks are going to struggle more than 5 man attacks and the difference is significant IMO.
The Windies did not lose a series (29 of them) between 1980 and 1995. Sure they 'failed at times', but by and large their 3-4 quality pacemen were sufficient during those 15 years.I think we tend to slightly exaggerate the capabilities of these bowlers we're discussing. The WI quartet for example did actually fail at times against batting lineups far less talented than the current SA squad.
Bit more than 150 runs. I said 4/255 and NUFAN reckoned 4/234.Once again you're misreading my point - I'm not saying that they weren't highly successful, all I am saying is that when we talk about the bowling combinations we draft for example, we seem to talk about our sides as if they would tear through any side for ~150 runs every time.
So what's the point of having a number 6 who is going to end up often on a small score not out if you think its 4-out, all-out on in the case of 6 batsman, 5-out, all-out.It feels as though we are stuck in an infinite loop with no way out.......
Suffice to say, an average 4 man attack would struggle against a quality batting team. And an average 5 man attack would fair little better because the 5th bowler would get smashed just like the other 4 bowlers.
On the other hand, a quality 4 man attack would go OK against a quality batting team. A quality 5 man attack would of course be better, but not if they have to defend smaller totals most of the time because their batting line-up equates to 4-out, all-out.
Which brings us back to square one
All I said was whenever I see a score at 3/234 I think the batting team is on top, when I see it 5/234 the bowlers are on top (unless its a tough batting wicket) 4/234 to me always seems like an even contest.Bit more than 150 runs. I said 4/255 and NUFAN reckoned 4/234.
We like our wild assumptions to be very precise.
You have forgotten the context of the discussion..... Bradman is at No.3, and then Gilchrist comes in at No.7 after Miller gets out. Plus Miller is probably a stronger batsman than Botham anyway.So what's the point of having a number 6 who is going to end up often on a small score not out if you think its 4-out, all-out on in the case of 6 batsman, 5-out, all-out.
Basically I disagree once again. If a 5 man attack would of course be better that's exactly what I'm going for - I want a better attack so a strong fifth bowling option is brilliant, and seriously they can still bat, these high class all rounders..
All I said was whenever I see a score at 3/234 I think the batting team is on top, when I see it 5/234 the bowlers are on top (unless its a tough batting wicket) 4/234 to me always seems like an even contest.
I have not forgotten the context of the discussion. The point I questioned was actually in reply to your comment.You have forgotten the context of the discussion..... Bradman is at No.3, and then Gilchrist comes in at No.7 after Miller gets out. Plus Miller is probably a stronger batsman than Botham anyway.
In other words, the balance is far better in an ATG Aussie team compared to the England ATG team. Therefore Miller sits more comfortably in the middle-order than what Botham does.