2nd greatest living cricketer

[ataraxia]

Batting ability of no. 10/11 decide Test matches, like never.

1 in 30 matches IMO. (If we're looking at Marshall vs McGrath or something like that)

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

1 in 30 matches IMO. (If we're looking at Marshall vs McGrath or something like that)

And, if it is Akram and Hadlee chances will increase substantially.

 

[ataraxia]

1 in 30 matches IMO. (If we're looking at Marshall vs McGrath or something like that)

1 in 15 to 20 matches on further thought. This being a conservative estimate.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah it's really not that hard, not sure what people have such a hard time understanding about it.

Batting ability of no. 10/11 decide Test matches, like never. Unless you genuinely think 2 options are virtually absolutely equal as bowlers then picking one because they are better at batting is dumb. A bowler makes way more difference taking a big wicket than scoring an extra 15 runs in an innings that might be relevant once every 10 games

It really depends. If you have McGrath vs Steyn, then no, I am not going with Steyn just because he can score a few extra runs. But with Mcgrath and Hadlee, then yeah, the value of Hadlee's extra runs do outweigh the very small bowling difference between them.

 

[h_hurricane]

And everyone doesn't think Mcgrath was a better bowler than Hadlee either. If there is a poll of 100 opinions, it is more likely to go 55-45 either ways. They are hard to split as bowlers alone.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And everyone doesn't think Mcgrath was a better bowler than Hadlee either. If there is a poll of 100 opinions, it is more likely to go 55-45 either ways. They are hard to split as bowlers alone.

As I've stated before, if you consider Hadlee and McGrath equal as bowlers then it's not even a relevant discussion. It's only relevant if you're picking someone who you consider a worse bowler (even if incredibly slightly) because they are are a bit better at batting.

 

[ataraxia]

As I've stated before, if you consider Hadlee and McGrath equal as bowlers then it's not even a relevant discussion. It's only relevant if you're picking someone who you consider a worse bowler (even if incredibly slightly) because they are are a bit better at batting.

I think Hadlee is a marginally worse bowler than McGrath. With Hadlee, however, you get 50 (I exaggerate. 35) more runs a game. Which is often the difference between winning and losing.

 

[kyear2]

As I've stated before, if you consider Hadlee and McGrath equal as bowlers then it's not even a relevant discussion. It's only relevant if you're picking someone who you consider a worse bowler (even if incredibly slightly) because they are are a bit better at batting.

Agree, as I've said, Hadlee over McGrath is the only acceptable trade off. Close enough as bowlers both being top 5. But also squeezing in Imran to be able to "bat deep" , doesn't make sense to me.. if you're going outside of the top 5 or so options to choose a bowler because you need to strengthen the batting, you're just unnecessarily weakening your attack, and to bowl is their primary job and objective.
You can surely afford to pick at least one of your bowlers on their bowling talents alone.

 

[Himannv]

I think Hadlee is a marginally worse bowler than McGrath. With Hadlee, however, you get 50 (I exaggerate. 35) more runs a game. Which is often the difference between winning and losing.

I think when picking a number 11, you really don't need to think about batting at all. I'd even argue that it isn't that important for a 9 or a 10 to be all that good with the bat. I'd expect the Klingon team or whatever to prioritize similarly.

I'm not saying you wouldn't pick Hadlee at all in the XI, he can bat at 8 and be one of the three pace bowling options. McGrath, for me, is the GOAT bowler so I wouldn't really leave him out over anyone.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, I get that every run matters, but so does every wicket taken, and that matters far more so.

 

[bagapath]

even if they averaged 2 with the bat, imran and hadlee are in the top 15 options to be among the three pacers one would have for five ATG teams...

 

[Bijed]

I'll preface this all by saying that for all my defending considering nudging the balance of the tail in favour of batting over bowling, I wouldn't actually go for it if I had to pick a team to win a match or series right now without any testing of how different combinations perform, because unless you take the batting side of the equation to quite an extreme (like an 8-11 of Imran, Pollock, Hadlee, Wasim or something), the chances of a good spell of bowling from the opposition nullifying the impact of your extra batting is likely enough to scare me off that approach as you'd then be at a clear disadvantage from the compromises you made to your bowling.

But I don't like the writing off better batting 10/11 or whatever as "hardly ever affecting the outcome" without acknowledging that a differences in bowling that we're talking about are rarely going to be night and day in the final result (more than happy to say they'll more consistently make some difference though). Runs, especially in a match or series between two strong, evenly-matched and consistent sides, always matter even if you can't slap a "match-winning" or even "momentum-shifting" label on them (which is something that I do think gets overlooked a bit in general tbh).

I'll stand by my stance that in practice it would be really difficult to tell what the absolute optimimum choice is, though. If you suffer a 1-wicket loss and you'd favoured batting, you'll be rueing that trade off in wicket-tacking. If you'd favoured the bowling instead you may well wonder if an extra 10-15 runs to bowl at could have made a difference.

I will say that I think this has actually been a pretty good discussion, been the most I've enjoyed arguing this kind of thing for ages

 

[subshakerz]

To me the answer is obvious, you pick Imran at 8 and Hadlee at 9, because they are both ATG master bowlers in contrasting styles of reverse and seam while simultaneously bolstering you tail end.

At 10 and 11, batting skills are a plus but not a prerequisite.

 

[kyear2]

even if they averaged 2 with the bat, imran and hadlee are in the top 15 options to be among the three pacers one would have for five ATG teams...

Yes, but if picking a first team, you're not looking at 15 options, more like the top 5 for the 3 spots.

 

[subshakerz]

Agree, as I've said, Hadlee over McGrath is the only acceptable trade off. Close enough as bowlers both being top 5. But also squeezing in Imran to be able to "bat deep" , doesn't make sense to me.. if you're going outside of the top 5 or so options to choose a bowler because you need to strengthen the batting, you're just unnecessarily weakening your attack, and to bowl is their primary job and objective.
You can surely afford to pick at least one of your bowlers on their bowling talents alone.

I think you pick Imran as he is generally considered the greatest ever bowling allrounder

 

[kyear2]

To me the answer is obvious, you pick Imran at 8 and Hadlee at 9, because they are both ATG master bowlers in contrasting styles of reverse and seam while simultaneously bolstering you tail end.

At 10 and 11, batting skills are a plus but not a prerequisite.

And that's your opinion and I respect it. My only question is, if as Bagapath said Imran and Hadlee averaged only 2 with the bat, would Imran rank in your top 4 or 5 bowlers to merit that selection.

My only point is and has been. I would try to select the best attack with some consideration for variety and a little for batting. But I'm going to start with the best 5 bowlers and find that balance from within that group.
Your selection philosophy is that Imran's batting is enough to jump him over the 4 or 5 bowlers who may be better, but only slightly so.

We can agree to disagree

 

[harsh.ag]

Instead of picking Hadlee over McGrath, pick Hadlee over Imran

 

[kyear2]

I think you pick Imran as he is generally considered the greatest ever bowling allrounder

But I don't need a bowling all rounder. ??‍

I don't even need a batting one, and again if I do, it based primarily on his batting first.
Sobers for me is picked primarily for his batting, secondarily for his slip fielding. The bowling comes 3rd.

 

[kyear2]

Instead of picking Hadlee over McGrath, pick Hadlee over Imran

I do, but then I have 2 similar bowlers, and I like the variety. So I pick Hadlee and swap Steyn for McGrath. And all are still chosen from my top 5 (Marshall, Steyn McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose) and still get the desired results.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah it's really not that hard, not sure what people have such a hard time understanding about it.

Batting ability of no. 10/11 decide Test matches, like never. Unless you genuinely think 2 options are virtually absolutely equal as bowlers then picking one because they are better at batting is dumb. A bowler makes way more difference taking a big wicket than scoring an extra 15 runs in an innings that might be relevant once every 10 games

You show complete distain for actual real world examples, while claiming elsewhere that 'real world cricket does not work this way'.

The example that started this all is steyn/ mcgrath. Steyn, a crap bat, won a series, not just a test, with the bat. Batting like mcgrath would have meant steyn lost an extra 12.5% of series in his career, not popped the only team they hadntt managed to beat since readmission, and possibly (if admittely unlikely) not got over a mental block of beating AUS.

Outside the real world example, nobody is seriously suggesting picking Steyn over Mcgrath on batting. They are just too close, and if you think Mcgrath is the better bowler/balances the attack better, you pick him. But when it comes to guys like Marshall/Hadlee/Imran, the equation changes a bit. If Steyns batting can swing series, better bats are likely to with much higher frequency.