Why Do ATG XI's Have More Pacers Than Specialist Spin Bowlers?

[The Sean]

There was a certain logic to not picking Grimmett in 1936-37. England had won the past two series in Australia easily, and as you say his wickets in those series were expensive: 48 runs apiece. Hammond in particular had taken a lot of runs off Grimmett and was never dismissed by him.

It was a different story in England where there was more turn. The leg-stump attack of Grimmett and O'Reilly restricted Hammond's scoring and caused him problems. Grimmett should have toured England in 1938 even at the age of 46. Also Don Tallon.

Considering that they developed wrist spin, the South Africans were vulnerable against it for some time, especially on their own pitches. Following Grimmett and O'Reilly, others to enjoy success against them included Wardle, Benaud and Jack Alabaster.

This has always been my Devil's advocate/unpopular opinion about the whole affair. I don't like the way Grimmett was discarded but I don't think Bradman thought of it as dropping a bloke who'd just taken 44 wickets in South Africa (he was a huge Grimmett fan). He thought of it as dropping a 44 year old, for a home series against England, who'd averaged 48 in his previous two home series against England and in the most recent one had actually been dropped for being so ineffective.

Also agree that Grimmett would have been much more valuable touring England in 1938.

 

[Burgey]

My ATG xi has both Murali and Warne.

Then it probably wouldn’t win unless the game was played on a turning deck. Spinners are just generally more pitch dependent than quicks. Just the nature of the respective skill sets

 

[Prince EWS]

Not going to bowl in an ATG level contest tbph.

But Imran batting 7 in one is apparently fine.

 

[slowfinger]

well if the ATG match was played in India I'd pick 2 spinners, if the ATG game was played at Headingly I'd pick 4 pacers and 1 spinner. In the modern game the spinner is in fact even disposable (although to the picking sides peril usually). That shows that spinners are more utility than pace bowlers but beyond their utility their ability to break down top order batsmen are limited unless they can turn the ball in a big way and/or both ways. And with the increasing strictness on elbow degrees this has become even more difficult (RIP up and coming spinners). Therefore it always makes sense to go with 3/4 pace and 1 sole option of spin.

 

[Prince EWS]

My attack is typically McGrath, Marshall, Imran, Warne, Sobers. I'd drop Marshall for Murali if I knew the pitch was going to be really spin-friendly.

I hadn't really thought about it much before now though because the versatility of Sobers' bowling kind of negates the need for pitch considerations a bit.

 

[kyear2]

I

But Imran batting 7 in one is apparently fine.

If Sobers / Kallis bowling offers diminishing returns in a ATG scenario, so does the batting down the order. I think it would have the same impact as a typical 5th bowler in a regular test scenario. If Root can take crucial wickets in the Ashes, peak Sobers can take wickets in an ATG series.

 

[Prince EWS]

I

If Sobers / Kallis bowling offers diminishing returns in a ATG scenario, so does the batting down the order. I think it would have the same impact as a typical 5th bowler in a regular test scenario. If Root can take crucial wickets in the Ashes, peak Sobers can take wickets in an ATG series.

Yeah Sobers was a frontline bowler in Test cricket but at a level above he'd just be a useful fifth option, like Watson or late-career Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

Ma

My attack is typically McGrath, Marshall, Imran, Warne, Sobers. I'd drop Marshall for Murali if I knew the pitch was going to be really spin-friendly.

I hadn't really thought about it much before now though because the versatility of Sobers' bowling kind of negates the need for pitch considerations a bit.

Marshall was actually really effective on slow and spinning pitches. Wouldn't be my choice, but understood the rationale of keeping McGrath and Imran for the batting.

 

[Prince EWS]

Marshall was actually really effective on slow and spinning pitches. Wouldn't be my choice, but understood the rationale of keeping McGrath and Imran for the batting.

Yeah I just think McGrath was very marginally better than Marshall so I kept the better bowler, but I find that comparison a coin-flip and don't feel strongly about it. Imran is my captain and there partly for batting (and himself was also very good on such surfaces) so he has to stay even though he was the worst bowler of the three.

 

[Migara]

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Murali as main bowlers and Imran at 7. On a spinning pitch, may be Warne or Ashwin. But on Indian dustbowls there were even better bowlers like Jasu Bhai Patel who were unplayable.

(Gavaskar, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Murali, McGrath would be my XI)

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

ATG Xi

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Smith
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Imran
Marshall
O’Reilly
McGrath

 

[Coronis]

This has always been my Devil's advocate/unpopular opinion about the whole affair. I don't like the way Grimmett was discarded but I don't think Bradman thought of it as dropping a bloke who'd just taken 44 wickets in South Africa (he was a huge Grimmett fan). He thought of it as dropping a 44 year old, for a home series against England, who'd averaged 48 in his previous two home series against England and in the most recent one had actually been dropped for being so ineffective.

Also agree that Grimmett would have been much more valuable touring England in 1938.

Oh I can understand the initial thought process at least - but Bradman’s choosing of Ward has been cited as poor at best and sticking with him through the series was just silly compared to a bowler with years of test experience.

There was a certain logic to not picking Grimmett in 1936-37. England had won the past two series in Australia easily, and as you say his wickets in those series were expensive: 48 runs apiece. Hammond in particular had taken a lot of runs off Grimmett and was never dismissed by him.

It was a different story in England where there was more turn. The leg-stump attack of Grimmett and O'Reilly restricted Hammond's scoring and caused him problems. Grimmett should have toured England in 1938 even at the age of 46. Also Don Tallon.

Considering that they developed wrist spin, the South Africans were vulnerable against it for some time, especially on their own pitches. Following Grimmett and O'Reilly, others to enjoy success against them included Wardle, Benaud and Jack Alabaster.

I don’t have any problem with the keeper selection tbh - Tallon was only 22 after all for the 1938 Ashes, Barnett was 30 and had been playing first class cricket for almost 10 years at that point (guess he would’ve been the “safer” option at least - also wtf started his first class career in 28/29, last first class match in 61)

 

[ankitj]

But Imran batting 7 in one is apparently fine.

You got Bradman and Gilchrist who give the batting enough of an edge that Imran at 7 is alright. You frequently see Botham or Procter at #7 in ATG XIs to accommodate an all rounder even without the benefit of a Bradman.

 

[Burgey]

All time elevens don’t need an all rounder tbh, unless someone is dumb enough to omit Bradman. If he plays with five other specialist batsmen there will always be enough runs scored so quickly that four bowlers will invariably get it done for you anyway. And if Sobers is one of your batsmen (as he always should be) then he’s a handy enough fifth bowler to bowl the 4 or 5 overs which the team would need made up on a really, really bad day.

Two of arguably the three best test sides in history did just fine without an allrounder because their specialists were good enough. It would be the same with an AT XI

 

[Migara]

All time elevens don’t need an all rounder tbh, unless someone is dumb enough to omit Bradman. If he plays with five other specialist batsmen there will always be enough runs scored so quickly that four bowlers will invariably get it done for you anyway. And if Sobers is one of your batsmen (as he always should be) then he’s a handy enough fifth bowler to bowl the 4 or 5 overs which the team would need made up on a really, really bad day.

Two of arguably the three best test sides in history did just fine without an allrounder because their specialists were good enough. It would be the same with an AT XI

Having said that if your all rounder is an ATG bat (Sobers) or an ATG bowler (Imran, Hadlee) it doesn't hurt you at all to have them in your side.

And one of those sides had a keeper who was a front line bat, some what similar to an all rounder.

 

[Shady Slim]

All time elevens don’t need an all rounder tbh, unless someone is dumb enough to omit Bradman. If he plays with five other specialist batsmen there will always be enough runs scored so quickly that four bowlers will invariably get it done for you anyway. And if Sobers is one of your batsmen (as he always should be) then he’s a handy enough fifth bowler to bowl the 4 or 5 overs which the team would need made up on a really, really bad day.

Two of arguably the three best test sides in history did just fine without an allrounder because their specialists were good enough. It would be the same with an AT XI

ponting australia and border australia?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't like the way Grimmett was discarded but I don't think Bradman thought of it as dropping a bloke who'd just taken 44 wickets in South Africa (he was a huge Grimmett fan). He thought of it as dropping a 44 year old, for a home series against England, who'd averaged 48 in his previous two home series against England and in the most recent one had actually been dropped for being so ineffective.

Fake news. How the **** would Bradman have known all that when Statsguru didn't even exist?

 

[ankitj]

Having said that if your all rounder is an ATG bat (Sobers) or an ATG bowler (Imran, Hadlee) it doesn't hurt you at all to have them in your side.

And one of those sides had a keeper who was a front line bat, some what similar to an all rounder.

Yes this. It just so happens that Sobers, Imran and Hadlee are top tier in their primary disciplines. Otherwise I wouldn't pick even one all-rounder.

 

[Ali TT]

I won't pick an all-rounder in my ATXI, don't need them! Except I might pick the ones who have a legitimate case to be one of the best 11 players of all time...

So, your picking an all-rounder then.

Could arguably have a 7-11 of Miller, Imran, Jadeja, Botham (pre-injuries), Hadlee. Add Sobers, Richards, Kallis and Hammond in your top 5 for a few extra options too.

 

[ataraxia]

Fake news. How the **** would Bradman have known all that when Statsguru didn't even exist?

by playing in those matches I think