Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[Spark]

Yeah okay that's just insane selection policy and would lose us Tests. Quite glad we don't do that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/648677.html Here, by the way, is a fairly typical example of what the five-man bowling attack allows us to do.

I mean the Ashes 2013-4 was a tale of what can happen if you play a 4-man attack. Your spinner gets carted as often happens on Australian, English, South African, NZ decks - then what? You have to go back to your main three bowlers - which is precisely what the batsmen want, because this happens.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah okay that's just insane selection policy and would lose us Tests. Quite glad we don't do that.

3rd Test: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town, Mar 1-5, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo Here, by the way, is a fairly typical example of what the five-man bowling attack allows us to do.

I mean the Ashes 2013-4 was a tale of what can happen if you play a 4-man attack. Your spinner gets carted as often happens on Australian, English, South African, NZ decks - then what? You have to go back to your main three bowlers - which is precisely what the batsmen want, because this happens.

Huh? England has Stokes, Broad, Anderson, Bresnan and Swann heading into that game. There is no "4 man" attack barring Broad's injury. My point is proved by England's paltry 250 in the first innings as to why a batsmen would have been better than Stokes batting at 6.

Injuries are unfortunate but you cannot be so defensive as to select your team in the rare possibility that a bowler may get injured and unable to bowl.

 

[Spark]

Linked the wrong Test, Brisbane is the better example. It does serve the broader point though, that if your spinner gets smashed, you need backup.

You're also off your head if you reckon that England would have been better served by dropping their best batsman of the series with Mitchell Johnson in that form. Bresnan was being picked purely on bowling there.

It really sounds to me like you're just selecting according to a checklist without bothering to work out what will actually win you the most Tests.

EDIT: It's not about injuries ffs. How many times does it have to be said? Shane Watson bowling 10 tight, probing overs a day allows us to bowl five extremely threatening, dangerous Mitchell Johnson spells a day and allows Ryan Harris to bowl at full effectiveness with the second new ball. You may hate it and think it an affront to the cricketing gods. Meanwhile the team is bowling sides out more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.

 

[cnerd123]

Injuries are unfortunate but you cannot be so defensive as to select your team in the rare possibility that a bowler may get injured and unable to bowl.

So basically never ever ever ever select injury prone players ever ever no matter how good they are, yes?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Linked the wrong Test, Brisbane is the better example. It does serve the broader point though, that if your spinner gets smashed, you need backup.

You're also off your head if you reckon that England would have been better served by dropping their best batsman of the series with Mitchell Johnson in that form. Bresnan was being picked purely on bowling there.

Ha. Stokes averaged under 35. Hardly knocking on the door of Bradman.

 

[Spark]

Ha. Stokes averaged under 35. Hardly knocking on the door of Bradman.

Can you name me a better one?

You've made a lot of posts in this thread. Not once have you actually addressed the main point being made.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

So basically never ever ever ever select injury prone players ever ever no matter how good they are, yes?

Depends on the injury, player and type of cricket.

Vettori world cup - yeah select him. Adam Milne or Hamish Bennett as test bowlers? No. I would rather see Adam Milne have a long ODI career than a short international career ruined by test cricket and him prone-to-injury body.

But your question does not follow the discussion. I am saying you cannot select a team assuming someone will be injured. It is too defensive. If the player is likely to be injured - then you must assess the risk of selecting them. If they cannot hold their own - don't select them.

 

[Prince EWS]

It really sounds to me like you're just selecting according to a checklist without bothering to work out what will actually win you the most Tests.

Yep. Absolutely. Regardless of what you think about this specific case, his general theories are just obviously not conducive to winning when you test them at the margins, as I said earlier. The only conclusion one can draw is that he's motivated by something other than winning. If so, that's fine, but it'd be good to know what it is so those of us who think selection should be wholly concerned with winning and saving Tests aren't arguing at cross purposes with him.

 

[Spark]

Like the sides who actually play four bowlers only are a distinct minority these days. SA do it, we do it, NZ do it, England do it, SL do it, Pakistan do it. Only India don't, and they've said many times that it's something they're desperate to fix. (I don't give a **** what Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do)

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Can you name me a better one?

You've made a lot of posts in this thread. Not once have you actually addressed the main point being made.

Than Bradman? No. He was the best.

Stokes had the best average of all batsmen on the 2013 tour. But the rest were crap. An average of under 35 from a batsman is nothing to write home about. A specialist batsman batting at 6 may have scored a lot more runs and Stokes may have done just as well batting at 8 and being the third seamer.

 

[Spark]

Than Bradman? No. He was the best.

Stokes had the best average of all batsmen on the 2013 tour. But the rest were crap. An average of under 35 from a batsman is nothing to write home about. A specialist batsman batting at 6 may have scored a lot more runs and Stokes may have done just as well batting at 8 and being the third seamer.

...

You are aware that there is a slight difference between batting in the top six and batting at #8 in a tail getting blasted away around you, yes? He might have had a great average, mind you - racking up a string of 15* scores will do that.

Name me a batsman who would have done better than Stokes on that tour. With the immediate implication that they would have been doing better than all of Alastair Cook, Kevin Pietersen, Joe Root, Ian Bell and Matt Prior. An actual, living, breathing batsman that exists in real life, not some hypothetical Mr N. Six you've shoved in there divorced from the actual cricket played on that tour.

 

[cnerd123]

Depends on the injury, player and type of cricket.

Vettori world cup - yeah select him. Adam Milne or Hamish Bennett as test bowlers? No.

Shane Bond.

Would you have picked him Tests given that he can't give you 22 overs without breaking down, and that you might need some bowling cover for him?

For some reason you disagree with the evidence that allrounder = reduced workload on main bowlers = higher intensity and quality from main bowler = better bowling performance overall. You also seem to reject the premise that one of the main 4 could have an off day/be taken apart. But do you also disagree with picking your best bowler because you would have to pick a slightly worse number 6 to cover some overs for him?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Like the sides who actually play four bowlers only are a distinct minority these days. SA do it, we do it, NZ do it, England do it, SL do it, Pakistan do it. Only India don't, and they've said many times that it's something they're desperate to fix. (I don't give a **** what Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do)

I like to see the Bangas winning.

NZ looked a far better team when they ditched the batting allrounder in the last test with a specialist bat at 6. The specialist bat at 6 was man of the match by the way.

I don't mind if Australia wants to weaken their team with Mitchell Marsh or Glen Maxwell. Quite like it actually. Fun watching Maxy play.

 

[Spark]

Shane Bond.

Would you have picked him Tests given that he can't give you 22 overs without breaking down, and that you might need some bowling cover for him?

For some reason you disagree with have completely ignored the evidence that allrounder = reduced workload on main bowlers = higher intensity and quality from main bowler = better bowling performance overall. You also seem to reject the premise that one of the main 4 could have an off day/be taken apart. But do you also disagree with picking your best bowler because you would have to pick a slightly worse number 6 to cover some overs for him?

fixed that for you

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Shane Bond.

Would you have picked him Tests given that he can't give you 22 overs without breaking down, and that you might need some bowling cover for him?

For some reason you disagree with the evidence that allrounder = reduced workload on main bowlers = higher intensity and quality from main bowler = better bowling performance overall. You also seem to reject the premise that one of the main 4 could have an off day/be taken apart. But do you also disagree with picking your best bowler because you would have to pick a slightly worse number 6 to cover some overs for him?

Would I have taken 12 years of Shane Bond playing ODI cricket solely but fit and without injury over his test and ODI career combinedas it stands? Yes.

And I would do the same with Adam Milne.

No I have believe that quality test bowlers can bowl twenty overs minimum a day and expect them to at the very least try to keep their intensity up throughout the day. They are professional cricketers. Be professional.

Not everyone is McGrath, Lillee or Hadlee but I do expect them to be held accountable and not excused if they "fall asleep" in the middle of the day and bowl repeated half trackers in a middle spell at very low pace and do not accept that the high workload is an excuse when they are only expected to produce 20 odd overs of quality a day. I also don't see how a batting allrounder who will just keep them in the field for longer does them any favours. It still on them to get the wickets. Sooner is better than later.

I hold it as part of assessing the bowler's quality as to how well they bowl their entire 20 overs a day. If they given you 15 good overs and 5 crap, that 5 crap must be part of the assessment of the player.

 

[Spark]

I like to see the Bangas winning.

NZ looked a far better team when they ditched the batting allrounder in the last test with a specialist bat at 6. The specialist bat at 6 was man of the match by the way.

I don't mind if Australia wants to weaken their team with Mitchell Marsh or Glen Maxwell. Quite like it actually. Fun watching Maxy play.

That specialist batsman who was already playing...

You are aware that the reason said specialist batsman at 6 was because NZ had no other options, yes? And that bowler workload was a concern throughout the match?

When the selection committees and Test captains of literally every single decent Test team in the world disagree with you that may be a sign that your entirely preconceived selection dogma may be a little too rigid.

No one is saying that you have to pick an allrounder. India don't, because they haven't found one good enough (but they still definitely want one). Just that in certain circumstances - particularly if you have a mediocre-to-okay spinner, which is the case for most sides - the hit in batting is marginal enough to be more than compensated by the attack having more freedom to go at full tilt all day.

Similar logic with bowlers who can bat.

 

[morgieb]

Is this Blocky's new account?

 

[Spark]

It's not 15 good and 5 crap, holy ****. How many times does this have to be explained. You literally cannot be reading the posts properly if honestly that's what you think we're saying.

 

[GIMH]

Further proof that Freddie changed the game of cricket forever

 

[cnerd123]

No I have believe that quality test bowlers can bowl twenty overs minimum a day and expect them to at the very least try to keep their intensity up throughout the day. They are professional cricketers. Be professional.

Not everyone is McGrath, Lillee or Hadlee but I do expect them to be held accountable and not excused if they "fall asleep" in the middle of the day and bowl repeated half trackers in a middle spell at very low pace and do not accept that the high workload is an excuse when they are only expected to produce 20 odd overs of quality a day. I also don't see how a batting allrounder who will just keep them in the field for longer does them any favours. It still on them to get the wickets. Sooner is better than later.

I hold it as part of assessing the bowler's quality as to how well they bowl their entire 20 overs a day. If they given you 15 good overs and 5 crap, that 5 crap must be part of the assessment of the player.

Yea no you have no clue.

Ishant Sharma gives you 20 overs a day. Heck he'll give you 30. You'd actually pick him over a 15 over a day Mitchell Johnson. Insane.