The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!


FTR, I don't believe McGrath and Ambrose are number 2 and 3 - but I think the above situation shows that you can't just think about batting when deciding on the eleven, there comes a time when picking the best bowlers is actually going to be very useful.

This.

Five best batsmen and three best bolwers with a batting and bowling All Rounder. If your top order of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Ricards, Tendulkar/Lara/Headley/Pollock, Sobers and Gilchrist has failed no reason to belive Hadlee would make that a diffference, like wise if you attack of Marshall, Mcgrath, Imran and Warne are struggling Kallis, Hammond or even Sobers are not going to save the day for you. They are support bowlers, to help in the roration and give the strike bowlers a rest or try to break a partnership, not champion bolwers the equals of the main attack.

 

[kyear2]

The assumption is that the difference between ATG bowlers is miniscule while the difference in their batting is large. This is true some of the time but not all of the time.

In the case of Marshall and Imran, I would say that Marshall is a better bowler than Imran to the same or similar magnitude that Imran is a better batsman than Marshall. In the end the differences cancel eachother out in the context of occupying the No.8 spot.

But because I believe the emphasis should always be on taking 20 wickets, then I'm going to bias toward what I consider a better/greater attack. In the end you ask yourself the question, 'Who do I really want to open my bowling and bowl the opposition out - Marshall or Imran?'

The goal is to take 20 wickets. period, so instead of stacking the batting and bowling lineups with 2nd rate bowlers and bowling all rounders, I would prefer to have great slip fielders in the team to take advantage of every opportunity created by the strike bowlers. But thats just me.

 

[Flem274*]

The margin of difference between bowlers is about as great as the margin of difference between Imran or Marshall batting at No.8 - that is, about 18.8 runs on average.

Athough, to be fair, the amount of runs that Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Warne combined would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 101.

The amount of runs that Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes (my preferred attack) would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 58; a difference of 43 runs per innings. It is tempting to get excited about those extra 43 runs - but nah, still not worth the trade.

The assumption is that the difference between ATG bowlers is miniscule while the difference in their batting is large. This is true some of the time but not all of the time.

In the case of Marshall and Imran, I would say that Marshall is a better bowler than Imran to the same or similar magnitude that Imran is a better batsman than Marshall. In the end the differences cancel eachother out in the context of occupying the No.8 spot.

But because I believe the emphasis should always be on taking 20 wickets, then I'm going to bias toward what I consider a better/greater attack. In the end you ask yourself the question, 'Who do I really want to open my bowling and bowl the opposition out - Marshall or Imran?'

This.

Five best batsmen and three best bolwers with a batting and bowling All Rounder. If your top order of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Ricards, Tendulkar/Lara/Headley/Pollock, Sobers and Gilchrist has failed no reason to belive Hadlee would make that a diffference, like wise if you attack of Marshall, Mcgrath, Imran and Warne are struggling Kallis, Hammond or even Sobers are not going to save the day for you. They are support bowlers, to help in the roration and give the strike bowlers a rest or try to break a partnership, not champion bolwers the equals of the main attack.

The goal is to take 20 wickets. period, so instead of stacking the batting and bowling lineups with 2nd rate bowlers and bowling all rounders, I would prefer to have great slip fielders in the team to take advantage of every opportunity created by the strike bowlers. But thats just me.

If you think the difference between Imran and Marshall's bowling is as great as their batting difference, and that Imran, Hadlee etc are second rate bowlers then it's time for me to bow out of this thread.

 

[Flem274*]

This.

Five best batsmen and three best bolwers with a batting and bowling All Rounder. If your top order of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Ricards, Tendulkar/Lara/Headley/Pollock, Sobers and Gilchrist has failed no reason to belive Hadlee would make that a diffference, like wise if you attack of Marshall, Mcgrath, Imran and Warne are struggling Kallis, Hammond or even Sobers are not going to save the day for you. They are support bowlers, to help in the roration and give the strike bowlers a rest or try to break a partnership, not champion bolwers the equals of the main attack.

Actually I will reply to this.

Surely you've seen teams get the living daylights knocked out of their top order only for a couple of infuriating bowling allrounders and/or pure bowlers add annoying runs?

And you do know that sometimes the worst bowler breaks the massive partnership your super bowlers couldn't?

This happens all the time.

In your world Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander obviously take five each and Kallis never bowls.

 

[watson]

If you think the difference between Imran and Marshall's bowling is as great as their batting difference, and that Imran, Hadlee etc are second rate bowlers then it's time for me to bow out of this thread.

No one said anything about 'second rate bowlers' as both Imran and Hadlee are worthy of their selection in a First ATG XI.

It's just that if you look at the ATG XI voting thread there are three players on a perfect 150/150 - Bradman, Marshall, and Hobbs. Imran scored 105 and Hadlee 87. This would imply that Marshall is in a fast-bowling league of his own in the mind of many cricket enthusiasts.

 

[watson]

Actually I will reply to this.

Surely you've seen teams get the living daylights knocked out of their top order only for a couple of infuriating bowling allrounders and/or pure bowlers add annoying runs?

And you do know that sometimes the worst bowler breaks the massive partnership your super bowlers couldn't?

This happens all the time.

In your world Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander obviously take five each and Kallis never bowls.

Yes, and it doesn't need the likes of Imran to hold-up an attack. The 2005 Ashes series was a classic example of this where Brett lee and Shane Warne, then Ashley Giles scored good runs against class attacks in good form. Admittedly not ATG standard, but then again, not that far off either.

 

[Flem274*]

Surely you realise Imran is more likely to score tail runs than some pure bowler, and more tail runs.

 

[watson]

Surely you realise Imran is more likely to score tail runs than some pure bowler, and more tail runs.

Yes, he is more likely.

But while a weaker tail can sometimes be little more cannon fodder, there is also no reason why they can't also impact a series like Lee and Warne, or Giles did in 2005. That's what I mean when I say that the batting prowess of bowling allrounders sometimes gets exaggerated relative to some of their counterparts. It's obviously very useful to have a bowling allrounder, but by the same token not completely essential provided that 8-9 know how to defend their wicket and hit some boundaries. I don't begrudge someone going out of their way to add a bowling allrounder to their team, but I do think it silly to insist that it is a cricketing principle akin to one of the 10 Commandments.

 

[Flem274*]

The system ate my post so this will be brief.

You contradict yourself in your paragraph there. A weaker tail can't impact anything because they're weak. They may do it as a one off or a few times in their career, but they don't hold a candle to the consistency of a bowling allrounder. If you want an example of the lower order coming to the rescue then look no further than Daniel Vettori. Warne and Lee impacted one or two series with the bat. A good bowling allrounder will do it throughout their entire career.

Real teams try to accommodate or find (within reason) good bowling allrounders all the time because they are a huge advantage. Lower order power contributed to England's rise to the top. A bowling allrounder both maximises the run scoring potential of all ten wickets and allows the player down the other end to play according to his own wishes rather than needing to worry about shepherding the strike or going ballistic, especially if they're not known for quick singles and big sixes.

We're not discussing the relative merits of Glenn McGrath and Bruce Taylor here, where McGrath is clearly the better bowler. You have a choice between debating for years on the best possible specialist attack, ignoring batting and fielding, and risking having 8-11 filled by players who can only bowl in return for a 0.02% advantage or you can pick a bowling attack equal on bowling to the first but with serious batting power.

In the real world Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Warne would be the selected attack every time over something like Ambrose/Lillee/McGrath/Murali, or even Imran/Lillee/McGrath/Murali. The only place you see the dubious argument for picking the best four bowlers regardless of anything else is when picking bowlers for a weak bowling team where you need to extract everything you can from limited resources or in an ATG discussion.

 

[Furball]

You guys know there's porn on the internet, right?

 

[sledger]

We need a ATG porn thread. Would probably get some higher quality analysis in that.

 

[Red]

The difference with having these bowling all rounders (who are basically equal bowlers to the pure bowlers) is not that "player X will average 14 more runs than player Y". It's the fact that "player X in a partnership with player Z will be able to stick around while player Z (batsman) and him put together a p/ship of 50 or 100".

 

[Burgey]

Sigh

 

[watson]

The system ate my post so this will be brief.

You contradict yourself in your paragraph there. A weaker tail can't impact anything because they're weak. They may do it as a one off or a few times in their career, but they don't hold a candle to the consistency of a bowling allrounder. If you want an example of the lower order coming to the rescue then look no further than Daniel Vettori. Warne and Lee impacted one or two series with the bat. A good bowling allrounder will do it throughout their entire career.

Real teams try to accommodate or find (within reason) good bowling allrounders all the time because they are a huge advantage. Lower order power contributed to England's rise to the top. A bowling allrounder both maximises the run scoring potential of all ten wickets and allows the player down the other end to play according to his own wishes rather than needing to worry about shepherding the strike or going ballistic, especially if they're not known for quick singles and big sixes.

We're not discussing the relative merits of Glenn McGrath and Bruce Taylor here, where McGrath is clearly the better bowler. You have a choice between debating for years on the best possible specialist attack, ignoring batting and fielding, and risking having 8-11 filled by players who can only bowl in return for a 0.02% advantage or you can pick a bowling attack equal on bowling to the first but with serious batting power.

In the real world Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Warne would be the selected attack every time over something like Ambrose/Lillee/McGrath/Murali, or even Imran/Lillee/McGrath/Murali. The only place you see the dubious argument for picking the best four bowlers regardless of anything else is when picking bowlers for a weak bowling team where you need to extract everything you can from limited resources or in an ATG discussion.

Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Warne = Yes I would select this attack. The bowling and batting is strong.

Ambrose/Lillee/McGrath/Murali = No I would not select this attack. The batting is unacceptably weak.

Imran/Lillee/McGrath/Murali = Yes I would select this attack if (hypothetically) I believed it to be the best possible. The batting is weaker, but still acceptable. That is, I'm not after batting nirvana with my bottom 4, rather I want them to take 20 wickets quicker than most other bowling combinations.

 

[watson]

You guys know there's porn on the internet, right?

Not much different to this thread though - up and down, in and out, back to front, jostling and banging.

 

[Red]

Sigh

Tough morning being elitist and aloof?

 

[Days of Grace]

Everyone, well the non-NZ posters anyway, seem to be saying that Hadlee would only be included for his batting. He had a poor start to his career, hence his bowling average is 22 and not 20/21. But I would love to have seen what Lillee, Marshall, etc. would have done at age 38/39.

Hadlee averaged 19 throughout the 1980s. If his batting was like Chris Martin's, I would still seriously consider him for my all-time XI.

 

[Gowza]

Everyone, well the non-NZ posters anyway, seem to be saying that Hadlee would only be included for his batting. He had a poor start to his career, hence his bowling average is 22 and not 20/21. But I would love to have seen what Lillee, Marshall, etc. would have done at age 38/39.

Hadlee averaged 19 throughout the 1980s. If his batting was like Chris Martin's, I would still seriously consider him for my all-time XI.

Hadlee is a very serious contender for my all time XI,

 

[Burgey]

Tough morning being elitist and aloof?

No more than usual. It's a burden, but one I carry well.

 

[fredfertang]

Tough morning being elitist and aloof?

He does have at least one very smart suit, from Savile Row obviously, only the best for Burgey