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

[TheJediBrah]

ponting australia and border australia?

80s Windies bro

 

[kyear2]

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)

Way bowler overkill and tail is again too long. But I understand you do what you have to do to get your guys in there.

 

[kyear2]

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.

What makes Gilchrist special is him coming at 7 and the relative freedom that afforded him not being one of the front line batsmen.

And Bradman can fail.

Give me Gilchrist at 7 and four primary bowlers, why expose yourself to a potential collapse.

 

[ankitj]

What makes Gilchrist special is him coming at 7 and the relative freedom that afforded him not being one of the front line batsmen.

And Bradman can fail.

Give me Gilchrist at 7 and four primary bowlers, why expose yourself to a potential collapse.

I can understand if you say the side is one batsman short. But there is no difference between batting at 6 or 7. Like slip cordon, this is one of those things that you overthink.

 

[kyear2]

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

The '80 Windies and the subsequent Aussie teams didn't have or try to fit in all rounders.

What they had were stacked atg fast bowling attacks, a solid to great long term opening partnership, aggressive middle orders and elite slip cordons.

That's how you build a team.

 

[peterhrt]

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

In the 1930s newspapers and cricket magazines published a lot of cricket stats. English first class averages were updated every week.

England v Australia matches were especially well covered and Grimmett's record would have been well known. His age may not have been, since he made out he was younger than he was (bowled in a cap to conceal baldness) and it wasn't as easy to check back then.

 

[kyear2]

I can understand if you say the side is one batsman short. But there is no difference between batting at 6 or 7. Like slip cordon, this is one of those things that you overthink.

The difference is potentially the score when you come in, and yes, one batsman short is an unnecessary risk. Especially to play an extra bowler when you already have 3 elite pacers and a spinner who can hold down an end most of the day if required.

I don't want Imran / Hadlee at 7, if we are playing ATG level opposition, if they ran through Hutton, Bradman, Sobers and co, Imran / Hadlee isn't going to bring it home. Same diminishing returns that some says applies to Sobers / Kallis's bowling applies here to their batting.

Re slip cordons, my AT XI has a bowling attack of Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn. Watch how they got their wickets and the level of opposition they will be facing. You don't want spilled opportunities and as the saying goes, catches win matches. England doesn't win a those couple matches at the end if their catching didn't improve, especially the performance of Crawley.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The '80 Windies and the subsequent Aussie teams didn't have or try to fit in all rounders.

What they had were stacked atg fast bowling attacks, a solid to great long term opening partnership, aggressive middle orders and elite slip cordons.

That's how you build a team.

If WI or Australia had had the choice of swapping out Gillespie or Garner for Hadlee/Imran, they would have done it.

 

[kyear2]

If WI or Australia had had the choice of swapping out Gillespie or Garner for Hadlee/Imran, they would have done it.

Don't dispute that, but was it required for the sustained greatness.

The chiefs would have traded out their 4th round rookie running back for Barry Sanders last season if they could, but it wasn't required to win, and it didn't hurt them

 

[Slifer]

If WI or Australia had had the choice of swapping out Gillespie or Garner for Hadlee/Imran, they would have done it.

Ok but would India had been better served in the 80s by a Dev or a Glenn McGrath??

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Ok but would India had been better served in the 80s by a Dev or a Glenn McGrath??

India of the 80s would have easily picked a Hadlee or Imran over McGrath that I do know.

 

[peterhrt]

If WI or Australia had had the choice of swapping out Gillespie or Garner for Hadlee/Imran, they would have done it.

Don't believe West Indies would have swapped Garner for anybody. Great bowler with old and new ball. Best gully fielder in the business.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Don't believe West Indies would have swapped Garner for anybody. Great bowler with old and new ball. Best gully fielder in the business.

And he could bat.

They would have swapped Roberts or Holding easily tho.

 

[shortpitched713]

Spinners can bowl much longer spells to maintain pressure and usually just take a larger volume of wickets.

Technically that is correct, but in practice what has that meant for the vast majority of Test spinners who are not an Indian or Sri Lankan playing in one of those countries?

A lot of it is just getting through a big chunk of overs, while also giving the frontline specialist seamers a rest until called on again. That, and more recently, keeping up with the required over rate, if you care about that sort of thing.

It's not even necessarily more likely to constrict run rate, depending how full Bazball of an approach the batsmen decide to take, to force the issue.

Given all those issues, and the auxiliary nature of such a role, it's not a surprise there are so few spinners on these ATG lists.

Actually, it's almost all just Murali and Warne, honestly.

 

[Burgey]

India of the 80s would have easily picked a Hadlee or Imran over McGrath that I do know.

Why? He’s a better bowler than both of them

 

[Burgey]

And he could bat.

They would have swapped Roberts or Holding easily tho.

Robert’s batted above Garner in every test they played. He was a much better batsman than Garner.

If the WI had the chance to swap Garner for Imran or Hadlee, they would be doing it based on their bowling, not on what would be their lower order batting. 80s Windies didn’t need an AR just as 90s/00s Aus didn’t. Their specialists were good enough.

Same with AT XIs. You don’t need an AR for the sake of it. If Sobers plays he’s picked as a batsman averaging 57, not because he’s able to bowl a few overs. Same with Imran, Miller or whoever. In that company your primary skill needs to get you picked on its own or you’re weakening the side by including someone who is mediocre by AT standards at both disciplines.

 

[Prince EWS]

Robert’s batted above Garner in every test they played. He was a much better batsman than Garner.

Garner's batting is a meme ftr.

 

[ankitj]

Ok but would India had been better served in the 80s by a Dev or a Glenn McGrath??

No one picks Dev over McGrath for being an all rounder.

 

[kyear2]

India of the 80s would have easily picked a Hadlee or Imran over McGrath that I do know.

Why?

I promise I'm not starting anything but genuinely why?
McGrath averaged 21 in India, Imran 28

 

[Slifer]

Robert’s batted above Garner in every test they played. He was a much better batsman than Garner.

If the WI had the chance to swap Garner for Imran or Hadlee, they would be doing it based on their bowling, not on what would be their lower order batting. 80s Windies didn’t need an AR just as 90s/00s Aus didn’t. Their specialists were good enough.

Same with AT XIs. You don’t need an AR for the sake of it. If Sobers plays he’s picked as a batsman averaging 57, not because he’s able to bowl a few overs. Same with Imran, Miller or whoever. In that company your primary skill needs to get you picked on its own or you’re weakening the side by including someone who is mediocre by AT standards at both disciplines.