• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Mine is:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

I'm settled on all these bar Wasim, personally. I could equally have Hadlee or Imran and get a similar bowling all rounder for #8 with elite bowling, and it'd be much the same. I go for Wasim because of his skill bowling with the old ball (as well as the new) plus the LA variety.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
  1. Hobbs
  2. Gavaskar
  3. Bradman
  4. Tendulkar
  5. Sobers
  6. Chapell
  7. Gilchrist
  8. Warne
  9. Wasim
  10. Marshall
  11. McGrath

Lots of close players.

Gavaskar and Wasim I always go back and forth in terms of my all time XI. Rest are pretty set I think. Though it’s tough to leave out guys like Richards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Second Bazball ATG XI

Trumper
Jayasuriya
I Chappell
Weekes
Bairstow
Lloyd
Miller
Symonds
Afridi
S Pollock
Davidson
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
_00_deathscar said:
Sachin averaged more at 5 than at 4 anyway
Click to expand...
Is batting order really a serious consideration?

When I look at great batsmen, especially if they're all relatively modern greats, I'm thinking just fit in the best possible batsmen from 3-6, in however way you have to, rather than worrying about position specific stats. I don't imagine so, but am I in the minority on this point?
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
silentstriker said:
Too bad.
Click to expand...
Being that this hypothetical match might be played in the modern era, and not some arbitrary time in the past, you might just end up leaving some runs on the table, by taking such a hardline stance.

shortpitched713 said:
This is such a good question, and here's my historical reasoning as to why it should be the first factor (degree of difficulty in opening), and this is the higher factor by a large margin.

Here's the different averages by each position, for reference:

Full Test History (1877-Present):
Op) 35.71
01) 36.85
02) 34.56
03) 39.48
04) 40.84
05) 38.08
06) 32.61
07) 27.73
08) 21.31
09) 15.53
10) 11.57
11) 8.55
3-5) 39.49
Op/3-5) 0.904

Modern Era (1970-Pres):
Op) 35.92
01) 36.96
02) 34.88
03) 39.46
04) 41.66
05) 39.41
06) 34.11
07) 29.24
08) 21.91
09) 15.53
10) 11.40
11) 8.29
3-5) 40.18
Op/3-5) 0.894

Inter/Post Wars (1914-1969):
Op) 36.74
01) 38.49
02) 35.01
03) 41.86
04) 41.50
05) 36.21
06) 30.23
07) 24.89
08) 20.05
09) 15.89
10) 11.87
11) 8.70
3-5) 39.93
Op/3-5) 0.920

Pre World Wars (1877-1913):
Op) 28.69
01) 28.85
02) 28.53
03) 30.53
04) 27.54
05) 27.98
06) 22.55
07) 19.56
08) 18.60
09) 14.27
10) 12.62
11) 10.72
3-5) 28.70
Op/3-5) 1.000

If you look at the breakdown by eras, you'll notice that the gap between production of true middle order (I define as 3-5, but you can go with 3-4) is greatest in the modern era, but decreases in size progressively until you get to the earliest Pre World Wars eras where it's basically a negligible difference. It makes sense as well, as the absolute highest producing run-scorers of earlier eras were openers (think Hobbs, Sutcliffe). Thinking about it conceptually, if all else is equal and it's not really harder to open and bat up the order than further down then of course you'd want to put your best run scorers as high up the order as possible because it gives them the maximum ability to score the most runs possible, and minimizes the chance that they run out of batting partners.

So what changed from those early days of cricket to the modern era, with the highest run scorers of the side generally needing to be shielded from the new ball? Fast bowling technique with the new ball, developed and then exploded to become the defining feature of the game. This was really in it's infancy in the earlier eras of Test cricket for mine, and now that it's a given for any aspiring great side to be able to attack with their most skilled fast bowling resources with the first new ball to effect, it's clear to me that the most difficult specialist batting role in the side by far is that of the openers.

I mean, you don't need a ****ing in depth stats analysis for that, when we can all just ****ing watch the game and it should be clear, but it's nice to see the evolution broken down in numbers as well.

PS:
The original reason that I wanted to get this breakdown is to try and determine, in the modern game, the best spot for your best middle order bat, between the 3 or 4 positions. And assuming that that position should be where that best batsman can maximize his run-scoring potential (because why the **** wouldn't you want him to), then I think that is clearly the number 4 position in the modern game. I think it ends up being in that Goldilocks zone where you're both the vast majority of the time avoiding the first new ball ( something the number 3 will see often enough to impact his scoring ), and early enough to make their mark on the game before you've lost the majority of your best batting resources (like a bat coming in at 5 would deal with) and are not in much danger of running out of partners either. Of course, individual comfort and preferences of this best bat in the side will also effect the batting spot decision, but if in doubt I think 4 is the best spot*.

*Unless you're a Pakistani bat circa the 2000s, and senior players would want to get as far away from the possibility of facing the new ball as much as possible, (i.e. Inzamam playing 5) because the openers were utterly incompetent and would put you in that position constantly.
Click to expand...
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
shortpitched713 said:
Being that this hypothetical match might be played in the modern era, and not some arbitrary time in the past, you might just end up leaving some runs on the table, by taking such a hardline stance.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t make sense tactically for the good of the team to bat him anywhere else. The argument about best bat at four falls apart when you’re talking about an outlier like Bradman.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
silentstriker said:
Doesn’t make sense tactically for the good of the team to bat him anywhere else. The argument about best bat at four falls apart when you’re talking about an outlier like Bradman.
Click to expand...
I mean, he's clearly your best bat in any and all circumstances. And if modern conditions merit a bit of extra protection for your best bat compared to in his day, then why not?

I mean, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate. Honestly if I was managing him I'd probably defer to whatever he thought was going to allow him to score the most runs, be that batting at 3 or 4, or requiring hookers and weed, or whatever the **** it is, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top