Bradman or Hammond, Sachin or Jacques, Gavaskar vs Simpson

[AndrewB]

Simpson's middle-order stats are partly affected by coming out of retirement in his forties during the Packer period, when he batted exclusively down the order.

He was fine against India but struggled against the West Indian fast bowlers, averaging 22 in five Tests with problems picking up the short ball. That wasn't surprising given that he had been out of the game for nine years. After the series in the Caribbean Simpson promptly retired again.

If you drop the matches he played in the 70s, Simpson’s middle-order average is 24.57.

 

[peterhrt]

If you drop the matches he played in the 70s, Simpson’s middle-order average is 24.57.

Simpson converted to opener in late 1959. By this time he had played six Tests and was averaging 41 in first-class cricket. As captain he also put himself in number six during the first two Tests of the 1964 series in England.

According to the numbers Peter Pollock's view that Simpson should have stayed in the middle order was wrong. He seems to have based it on technical grounds rather than stats.

 

[peterhrt]

Most all-time Australian teams down the years have featured Trumper as one opener, with no consensus around his partner.

Australian writers appeared to rank Simpson behind Ponsford and Morris purely as a batsman. Not sure about Hayden. But throw in Simpson's slip catching and perhaps back-up leg-spin if only one specialist spinner is chosen, and it's a close call.

 

[kyear2]

I've found that Simpson is really an underrated batsman and player in general. His opening stats are really good, and out side of the very small top tier, as good or better than anyone's.

Throw in the deity level catching and useful leg spin and he's not a bad option.

What's strangely and sadly missing from the entire history of cricket is an ATG LH aggressive opener, who could catch a bit. Hayden and Smith comes closest but have just a bit too many holes.

Actually, since the advent of anything even approaching modern or good fast bowling there's only been two legitimate ATG opening batsmen and one who promised to be. And when you truly look at the actual "modern" era, just one. Probably making Sunny even a little under rated.

Two great openers, only two spinners and quite possibly on two truly standout wicketkeeper batsmen. Seems everyone wanted to bat in the middle order or bowl fast

 

[trundler]

Watling and Waite are as good as Knott.

 

[kyear2]

Watling and Waite are as good as Knott.

Guess Healy, Dujon and Engineer could arguably fit in there as well. But for ATG I generally think in the discussion for 1st or 2nd team? Of course I could be wrong and wicket keeping is very subjective.

 

[shortpitched713]

A few days ago in a different thread, Pews made the point that he would select Imran over Marshall or McGrath in his eleven, despite being the worst of the three. This is because Imran was his captain and also for his batting.

Now, the captaining bowling all rounder is a rare breed indeed, and without doubt would being value to a team, but how about the batting all rounder slip specialist.

Wally Hammond, Garry Sobers, Bobby Simpson, Greg Chappell, Jacques Kallis, Steve Smith (?)

I believe Sachin has a good an argument as any to be seen as the best after Bradman, probably the absolute best, but using Pew's argument shouldn't we instead look at a Hammond, Smith or even Kallis?

I believe all secondary skills are useful, but as some as discussed in the same thread, fifth bowlers would possibly provide diminished returns vs a comparable ATG XI, and similarly would lower order / bowling all rounder's batting. Slip fielding would have no such depreciation and with the bowling attacks in question would fill an equally important role to the other all rounders on the team.

But yes, welcome to possibly the shortest ever thread on CW.

This is basically my All-Time drafting selection ideology:

Have you ever been drafting, and thought to yourself any of these questions "Why am I using such smol brain strategies as picking specialists?", "Should I ascend from the baseline plane of thinking involving simply pick bowler with low average, batsman with high average?" "Should I start justifying my picks based on nuanced concepts like value and flexibility, and start running teams that are hard to compare with literally anyone else's?"

In that case you should consider joining the:

Astute All-Rounders Appreciating Assembly

Just pick all-rounders, easy enough no? No, actually the below are a comprehensive list of the all-rounders which you must pick before picking their specialist counterparts, at risk of being kicked out of our prestigious association. Simply at the start of a vanilla draft (no Bradman), whenever GOAT specialists are available, you must choose one of the following all-rounders instead, if available:

Batting All-Rounders (choose before Brian Lara):
Wally Hammond
Garry Sobers
Jacques Kallis

Seam Bowling All-Rounders (choose before Glenn McGrath):
Keith Miller
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Shaun Pollock

Spin Bowling All-Rounders (choose before Muttiah Muralitharan):
Ravichandran Ashwin
Ravindra Jadeja


Yes, yes I hear "But actually shortpitched, I think Tendulkar/Marshall/Warne, etc. are the GOAT batsman/seamer/spinner!" I'm happy for you bro, but for the purposes of comparing an all-rounder to specialists and avoiding confounding variables, I have selected these specific GOAT specialists due to their lack of competence at their secondary skill.

Basic rules also do not require the picking of any more than 2 bowling all-rounders. Once you have 2, you are free to choose the best available specialist bowlers. Also, once you have 5 full-time bowlers (including all-rounders), you do not any longer have to consider bowling as a factor in considering your batsmen picks. Happy drafting, my current and future AAAA members!

I have tempered this ideology somewhat (okay not by much, as the only seam bowling all-rounder I wouldn't pick anymore before McGrath is Kapil Dev. Still, I could probably figure out a scenario where you'd choose Kapil Dev over McGrath as a choice).

I do think batting all-rounders are a bit of a myth. The whole concept of an all-rounder comes about for the following reason. Each Test side of 11 will need 4 or 5 bowlers, and will also ideally want to bat down to position 8 or even 9. Given that context, it's nice that a Kallis or Sobers can bowl some, but against ATG opposition batting, they're more or less glorified part-timers in bowling utility. So for me, the greatest all-rounder ends up being Imran Khan, followed by Pollock, then Hadlee. I mean think about it, gun to head, if asked who provided more utilty to their Test side between Hadlee and Botham, you'd have to say Hadlee right? Because that extra he provides as a GOATish level bowler is worth more than that extra handful of batting runs per match from Botham.

 

[the big bambino]

Simpson's middle-order stats are partly affected by coming out of retirement in his forties during the Packer period, when he batted exclusively down the order.

He was fine against India but struggled against the West Indian fast bowlers, averaging 22 in five Tests with problems picking up the short ball. That wasn't surprising given that he had been out of the game for nine years. After the series in the Caribbean Simpson promptly retired again.

Still averaged 55 as opener though.

 

[peterhrt]

Ponsford is an interesting one. It has become commonly held that he struggled against pace, but there are alternative accounts that his struggles were more against Larwood specifically rather than fast bowling generally. Bradman is one of those who spoke in his defence, writing in Farewell To Cricket that he considered the perceived pace weakness to be nonsense and referencing the pasting he gave Gubby Allen at Lord's in 1930.

A few numbers around Ponsford, Morris, Simpson and Hayden against genuine pace in Tests. Innings are only included when there was at least one fast bowler in the opposition. For example Trueman doesn't count as fast after 1961.

Averages: Ponsford 50, Hayden 46, Simpson 36, Morris 35.

Percentage times dismissed by a fast bowler in these matches: Morris 32%, Simpson 46%, Hayden 48%, Ponsford 67%.

Already there are contradictions with the four in the first list appearing in reverse order in the second. As you say Ponsford's chief tormentor was Larwood who got him out five times and forced him to retire hurt on another occasion. Hayden was dismissed most often by Ntini (9) and Flintoff 6), both effective against left-handers, Simpson by Wes Hall (8) and Peter Pollock (6). Maybe Pollock knew what he was talking about after all.

No fast bowler dismissed Arthur Morris more than three times. He was known as Bedser's Bunny, falling on 18 occasions to the medium pace of Bedser with a trademark dismissal of shuffling across too far and being bowled behind his legs. Less publicised was the fact that in Test matches when the two met, Morris averaged 57. It was a case of headline numbers giving a misleading impression.

Genuinely difficult to separate these four.

 

[Prince EWS]

It depends on the context of what you're selecting, but I think the median or mean cricket team would benefit more from Kallis than Tendulkar.

Simpson vs Gavaskar is a hard one but Gavaskar was no mug in slips himself so I'd probably still go with him.

 

[kyear2]

It depends on the context of what you're selecting, but I think the median or mean cricket team would benefit more from Kallis than Tendulkar.

Simpson vs Gavaskar is a hard one but Gavaskar was no mug in slips himself so I'd probably still go with him.

Think that's the perfect contextualization and framing of the choice.
A better comp would have been Smith vs Sachin and that's if you think they are basically equal (as of now) and I personally don't believe they quite are.

Re Gavaskar you're 100% correct, though having Simpson's leggies wouldn't have been horrible to have in the back pocket.

 

[The Sean]

No fast bowler dismissed Arthur Morris more than three times. He was known as Bedser's Bunny, falling on 18 occasions to the medium pace of Bedser with a trademark dismissal of shuffling across too far and being bowled behind his legs. Less publicised was the fact that in Test matches when the two met, Morris averaged 57. It was a case of headline numbers giving a misleading impression.

It's always important to note this, and a shame that it so rarely happens - Bedser getting Morris 18 times (in only 37 innings) is forever the headline number, but almost never mentioned is that Morris scored 8 of his 12 Test hundreds against Bedser. I'd actually read once that Morris averaged 61 rather than 57 against him, but yes either way it was a long way above his career average.

Bedser was getting Morris out regularly in both the 1946/47 and 1948 series but Morris was also scoring mountains of runs at that point, so it only really became a "thing" in 1950/51 when not only did Bedser nail Morris five times, but they were for scores of 25, 0, 2, 0, and 4. Bedser got him five more times in 1953, three of them low scores again, and so the narrative was maintained.

Morris did have the last laugh - in their final meeting, at Brisbane in 1954/55, Morris made 153. And Bedser didn't get him.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah dismissed by x player y amount of times means zilch without context.