The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Days of Grace]

I meant 300%, sorry. Say Bowler A averaging 8 with the bat and 21 with the ball vs. Bowler B averaging 24 with the bat and 22 with the ball.

 

[Bolo]

I meant 300%, sorry. Say Bowler A averaging 8 with the bat and 21 with the ball vs. Bowler B averaging 24 with the bat and 22 with the ball.

I'm clearly on your side with your thought process, but it doesn't make sense to quantify things in percentages this way. You need to use absolute numbers. See Bumrah. A several hundred percent improvement in his batting average would still leave him a worthless bat, but the smallest of declines in his bowling would hurt.

 

[kyear2]

We’re not talking about Australia’s batting, or how different bowlers complemented their own teams in a given era.

We’re selecting a world XI. Are you telling me that you would select a bowler averaging 5% better over a bowler whose batting was 30% better?

Not just averaging 5% better but who I perceive to be better, even if by 5 to 10%, yes. Because not only is it their primary to bowl. Not only because I think the tail as it stands is strong enough, but also because if they ran through Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar and Sober, I don't see Hadlee or even Imran making a difference.

 

[MrPrez]

It would be a very interesting exercise to find a way to representing batting and bowling in a single rating system that justifies value to team.

For example, a 10% difference in batting average is probably less important than a 10% difference in bowling average to a team - for starters because you only have four bowlers, and perhaps up to 6 who will actually bowl in a single innings. as opposed to at least 6-7 genuine batsmen, and 11 who can bat.

 

[kyear2]

I meant 300%, sorry. Say Bowler A averaging 8 with the bat and 21 with the ball vs. Bowler B averaging 24 with the bat and 22 with the ball.

So basically you mean McGrath vs Hadlee . And as I have said, that's a tricky one. But let's say Hypothetically you, as I do rate McGrath top 3 and you rate Hadlee top 10, and considering McGrath would be batting at 11, is it worth forcing in Hadlee?
I'm not saying, I'm just genuinely asking. It's not all about stats, McGrath for me is on my Rushmore with Marshall, Steyn and Warne and in their own league. But yes, Hadlee isn't far behind.

Where I differ is Imran over Steyn, Steyn offers so much more that 1% in the stats with the ball. And Steyns average of 13 is more than good enough at 10. I'm good.

And we are not talking about Gilchrist batting at 7 who averaged over 50 most of his career who was indeed a genuine batsman who also excelled at keeping.

 

[h_hurricane]

Picking players purely based on primary skill, my team would be

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Knott
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

Still a pretty decent tail. Sobers' batting would not be under-utilized.

 

[bagapath]

I cant really get my head around to choosing any combo "easily" over an Imran- Hadlee opening duo even on bowling skills alone. Even if they both averaged 2 and 3 with the bat, say, they can still be favorably compared over Steyn - McGrath, Marshall - Akram, Ambrose - Lillee or any other legendary pair of pace bowlers one can think of; for both Imran and Hadlee were awesome, awesome fast bowlers on all conditions and match winning spearheads who regularly ran through batting line ups picking up clumps of five wicket hauls at a great average dismissing the big batsmen of the opposition regularly. Plus they averaged 37 and 27 with the bat. They should be automatic choices for any all time XIs for opening the bowling, with their batting skills tilting their selection in their favor.

 

[kyear2]

I cant really get my head around to choosing any combo "easily" over an Imran- Hadlee opening duo even on bowling skills alone. Even if they both averaged 2 and 3 with the bat, say, they can still be favorably compared over Steyn - McGrath, Marshall - Akram, Ambrose - Lillee or any other legendary pair of pace bowlers one can think of; for both Imran and Hadlee were awesome, awesome fast bowlers on all conditions and match winning spearheads who regularly ran through batting line ups picking up clumps of five wicket hauls at a great average dismissing the big batsmen of the opposition regularly. Plus they averaged 37 and 27 with the bat. They should be automatic choices for any all time XIs for opening the bowling, with their batting skills tilting their selection in their favor.

No one said they weren't awesome.

But were they the best?

 

[Coronis]

Picking players purely based on primary skill, my team would be

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Knott
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

Still a pretty decent tail. Sobers' batting would not be under-utilized.

Still have no idea how people have Hutton over Sutcliffe. Better average (home and away), better performance against best opposition, scored centuries more often and converted more often.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Still have no idea how people have Hutton over Sutcliffe. Better average (home and away), better performance against best opposition, scored centuries more often and converted more often.

The post war pace attacks that Hutton scored all those runs against were better than anything Sutcliffe faced.

 

[Bolo]

I cant really get my head around to choosing any combo "easily" over an Imran- Hadlee opening duo even on bowling skills alone. Even if they both averaged 2 and 3 with the bat, say, they can still be favorably compared over Steyn - McGrath, Marshall - Akram, Ambrose - Lillee or any other legendary pair of pace bowlers one can think of; for both Imran and Hadlee were awesome, awesome fast bowlers on all conditions and match winning spearheads who regularly ran through batting line ups picking up clumps of five wicket hauls at a great average dismissing the big batsmen of the opposition regularly. Plus they averaged 37 and 27 with the bat. They should be automatic choices for any all time XIs for opening the bowling, with their batting skills tilting their selection in their favor.

Specifically as opening bowlers?

I'm not sure if you are trying to pick them on peak or career.

Peak, I'd pick Imran and ?Steyn

Career, I'd pick McGrath and ?Marshall.

If not for opening bowling specifically (and not factoring the batting in), Imran walks in if we are picking on peak, and hadlee is a fair shout if picking on career (loses out to McGrath by about 1% IMO, can't pick both). But don't see the how you could pick both Imran and Hadlee if you dont factor the batting in.

 

[trundler]

Hobbs averaged less than Sutcliffe too. Hutton did well against pre war spinners as well as post war pacers. Barrington averages more than Richards yet only the latter is part of these arguments most of the time. Hutton faced better quality bowling, was more central to his team's success immediately post war (along with Compton) and I suppose must've had more X factor. Did have the highest score record.

 

[a massive zebra]

Sutcliffe was hardly the most elegant or exciting player in history. A steady accumulator with great patience and a watertight defence, he made copious use of an angled bat and seldom played in the region between point and mid-on — the strokes of grace and grandeur that live long in the memory and elevate cricket to visual delight. He played in possibly the highest scoring era ever with very few all time great fast bowlers, made extensive use of his pads at a time when the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps in order for an LBW to be given, and never made any gargantuan scores in Tests.

Hobbs proved himself pre war (a much tougher era for batsmen), was a complete batsman who played all the classical shots, and had a fifth gear which he was able to use to take quality attacks apart.

Hutton was almost as prolific as Sutcliffe in a lower scoring post war era, faced a generally much higher standard of fast bowling and was the very embodiment of the technically correct, classical batsman. Unlike Sutcliffe, he also played under the modern LBW rule in which a batsmen can be given out to balls pitching outside the off stump.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Specifically as opening bowlers?

I'm not sure if you are trying to pick them on peak or career.

Peak, I'd pick Imran and ?Steyn

Career, I'd pick McGrath and ?Marshall.

If not for opening bowling specifically (and not factoring the batting in), Imran walks in if we are picking on peak, and hadlee is a fair shout if picking on career (loses out to McGrath by about 1% IMO, can't pick both). But don't see the how you could pick both Imran and Hadlee if you dont factor the batting in.

I was just looking into this. Steyn, like Sachin, seems to have just maintained an excellent career numbers wise, without ever really having had a proper sustained/prolonged 'peak' with ridiculous numbers - i.e. his career stats between his 'peak' years (2010-2016) vs his overall average/strike rate don't vary too much, unlike someone like Imran who averaged a ridiculous 15.92 between 1980-1986 with a S/R of 42.2 ("27 test best" of 14.85 from 1981-1986, with a S/R of 40.9), which is quite a huge difference from his career stats.

 

[kyear2]

Still have no idea how people have Hutton over Sutcliffe. Better average (home and away), better performance against best opposition, scored centuries more often and converted more often.

Hutton faced vastly superior bowling. Period. Sutcliffe was a clear no. 2 and not seen as the equal to Hobbs. He also a notoriously slow scored who made Hutton seem also Viv like. Also the rules in Sutcliffe's time was much more batsman friendly, the LBW rule in particular.

But yeah. No doubt in my mind Hutton was the best opener ever and top 5/6 batsman overall for me.

 

[Burgey]

How egregiously wrong. I, of course, birthed the revisionism thread precisely for takes like this. Off you go.

The little bloke's discovered some big words. Cute.

Making one decent thread out of 11K posts is merely an exception which proves the rule. Believe me, I'm an expert at these sort of things.

 

[Burgey]

Lol. If averages are a perfectly accurate indicator of bowling ability and 1 run in bowling average is massively impactful, then Joel Garner shits all over Glenn McGrath.

P.S. I don't actually think this, just showing what a ridiculous premise it is.

Joel Garner is as great a fast bowler as there's ever been, imho. Ridiculous player. He was basically a slightly taller McGrath who was a yard faster with it. I wish he'd had a longer career. Rate him higher than any other WI bowler not named Marshall. Better than Ambrose even. He was that good, just didn't play for long enough unfortunately, and somewhat understandably gets overlooked in favour of guys who took a lot more wickets by playing longer.

 

[Bolo]

I was just looking into this. Steyn, like Sachin, seems to have just maintained an excellent career numbers wise, without ever really having had a proper sustained/prolonged 'peak' with ridiculous numbers - i.e. his career stats between his 'peak' years (2010-2016) vs his overall average/strike rate don't vary too much, unlike someone like Imran who averaged a ridiculous 15.92 between 1980-1986 with a S/R of 42.2 ("27 test best" of 14.85 from 1981-1986, with a S/R of 40.9), which is quite a huge difference from his career stats.

Just want to make it clear that I'm not insulting steyn below to avoid previous confusions in this thread. I'm comparing him to his own career standards, or to bowlers of a similar caliber, of which there are hardly any.

The question (and suggestion of steyn) was purely on new ball bowling when it comes to peak. He was insanely destructive with the new ball early in his career. It might not reflect in his stats because he was utter garbage with an older ball. He changed as his career went on though: after about 2012-2013 he was a mediocre new ball bowler bowler, but a spectacular old ball bowler.

Anyway, I left a question mark next to steyn on the peak, new ball question. I would be interested to know if anyone has a better suggestion?

 

[Red]

Joel Garner is as great a fast bowler as there's ever been, imho. Ridiculous player. He was basically a slightly taller McGrath who was a yard faster with it. I wish he'd had a longer career. Rate him higher than any other WI bowler not named Marshall. Better than Ambrose even. He was that good, just didn't play for long enough unfortunately, and somewhat understandably gets overlooked in favour of guys who took a lot more wickets by playing longer.

He was so good.

I'd love to see some of these modern heroes of T20s have to deal with Big Bird in his prime.

 

[jimmy101]

Still have no idea how people have Hutton over Sutcliffe. Better average (home and away), better performance against best opposition, scored centuries more often and converted more often.

Perfect example of why stats are misleading.