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

[Bolo.]

The latter is a garbage point. He took a massive % of top order wickets and bowled to some great players on flat decks for a large part of his career.

The former is instructive. I'd not realized there were four innings in a test match before until some brain dead imbecile on here pointed it out to me. The idea that someone who average 38 with the bat in a standard era would still average 30 odd against an all time attack seems questionable in the extreme to me. If Imran gets into an AT side that's fine, but he has to get in on the basis his primary skill set as a bowler is good enough. The idea the runs he'd make in an AT XI contest would make a substantial difference is laughable. His batting was decent-very good for his time at its best. He's not going to make enough runs vs an AT attack if the contest for a spot is between him and another bowler who you think is measurably better as a bowler. If you think the two guys are relatively equal as bowlers and you want to use batting as a tie breaker then I can see your point.

Imran actually did make enough runs vs an ATG side with an ATG attack to make a difference. Considering stage in career, Walsh, Ambrose, and a preinjury Bishop is the best collection of bowlers ever fielded IMO. Marshall and Ambrose make a number of world ATG sides, Bishop was on a very similar level to them preinjury, and Walsh was an ATG, if not a top tier one. PAK lose the 91 series without his batting, and possibly even get whitewashed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Peak Pollock was averaging <20 and outperforming Donald statistically. It's not really close.



kyear chooses to ignore the posts that prove his claims wrong. Saying Marshall or Mcgrath are more valuable than Bradman is such an absurd claim that it deserves nothing but mockery too.

I think he was saying that both together might be more valuable than Bradman, not each individually.

Which is still wrong but I don't think it's insane.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think he was saying that both together might be more valuable than Bradman, not each individually.

If that's what he was saying, I take back what I said. But it really did not seem to be the case the way he framed it.

 

[kyear2]

Peak Pollock was averaging <20 and outperforming Donald statistically. It's not really close.



kyear chooses to ignore the posts that prove his claims wrong. Saying Marshall or Mcgrath are more valuable than Bradman is such an absurd claim that it deserves nothing but mockery too.

I didn't ignore it because it proves his average to be wrong, I ignored it because it didn't make any sense. They've been matches where teams scored 450 then bowled out the opposition for 150. You'll have an excuse for every single negative Imran stat, when in fact when you go through every player's career there are numbers that that can be contextualized or explained away.
The fact is every player in the modern era got multiple chances to play against most opponents and their numbers are what they are.
But according to you Imran's record in every country was compromised or has an explanation, but the truth is that over his career he did averaged 28 in India and India's pitches have never been conducive for fast bowling. And if you have to explain away his record in every single country, then somethings wrong. Take a look at Marshall's stats his first match in India, he struggled as well. No one is saying Imran wasn't one of the all time greats, but this nonsense to explain away his average in every single country is disingenuous.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just to add, I believe bowlers are the match winners in cricket and a bit more important than batsmen and I believe I'm taking Pigeon and Maco above any and everyone including the Don.

I took it as 'and' not 'or' but it's vague. Would appreciate clarification.

 

[Prince EWS]

I didn't ignore it because it proves his average to be wrong, I ignored it because it didn't make any sense. They've been matches where teams scored 450 then bowled out the opposition for 150. You'll have an excuse for every single negative Imran stat, when in fact when you go through every player's career there are numbers that that can be contextualized or explained away.
The fact is every player in the modern era got multiple chances to play against most opponents and their numbers are what they are.
But according to you Imran's record in every country was compromised or has an explanation, but the truth is that over his career he did averaged 28 in India and India's pitches have never been conducive for fast bowling. And if you have to explain away his record in every single country, then somethings wrong. Take a look at Marshall's stats his first match in India, he struggled as well. No one is saying Imran wasn't one of the all time greats, but this nonsense to explain away his average in every single country is disingenuous.

Ten Tests in which he was good but not great is basically irrelevant IMO. It's not like he played 30 Tests there or averaged 40. Cricket is far too high variance to read into that. It's analysis by checklist gone mad.

 

[OverratedSanity]

in fact when you go through every player's career there are numbers that that can be contextualized

Yes in fact that's true

 

[kyear2]

Ten Tests in which he was good but not great is basically irrelevant IMO. It's not like he played 30 Tests there or averaged 40. Cricket is far too high variance to read into that. It's analysis by checklist gone mad.

The argument was simply if they were playing for India would you take McGrath or Imran. Does anyone here think Imran was a better fast bowler than Glenn McGrath, and to add to the point, in India. Pure and simple.
Wasn't comparing him to Gillespie, I'm comparing him to one of the two greatest fast bowlers who ever lived.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This means nothing. Are you actually arguing they would've been right if they picked Healy over Gilchrist if they were of the same age? Clearly not.

On this, Gilchrist really should have debuted at least 2 or 3 years earlier. Healy was kept around because he wasn't doing too much wrong and was an institution the side. But Gilchrist would have been better.

Pollock wouldn't have made the Aus side of his era. One of the most over rated cricketers of all time tbh.

Bro we gave games to Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Matthew Nicholson, Adam Dale, Paul Wilson, Simon Cook . . . need I go on

Pollock is overrated but not to the extent that he's being left out for the likes of Bichel and Kasprowicz, let alone these guys^. He was a better Test cricketer than Brett Lee too.

McGrath/Gillespie/Stuart Clark at a pinch might have kept him out but even that's borderline and Gillespie and Clark didn't really overlap

 

[TheJediBrah]

The argument was simply if they were playing for India would you take McGrath or Imran. Does anyone here think Imran was a better fast bowler than Glenn McGrath, and to add to the point, in India. Pure and simple.
Wasn't comparing him to Gillespie, I'm comparing him to one of the two greatest fast bowlers who ever lived.

Are we willing to accept the possiblity that much as Imran's home stats are likely enhanced by home umpiring (and ball tampering), it's also possible that his away stats in India would be influenced in the negative. I can imagine Indian umpires not giving him much assistance

 

[kyear2]

Are we willing to accept the possiblity that much as Imran's home stats are likely enhanced by home umpiring (and ball tampering), it's also possible that his away stats in India would be influenced in the negative. I can imagine Indian umpires not giving him much assistance

Imran has on occasion referenced India's umpiring as being a point of contention and a factor in their series.
Marshall complained about it in his first series and also in the match that Sunny got his famous double hundred.

But they also have no intention to acknowledge the former.

 

[Burgey]

On this, Gilchrist really should have debuted at least 2 or 3 years earlier. Healy was kept around because he wasn't doing too much wrong and was an institution the side. But Gilchrist would have been better.

Bro we gave games to Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Matthew Nicholson, Adam Dale, Paul Wilson, Simon Cook . . . need I go on

Pollock is overrated but not to the extent that he's being left out for the likes of Bichel and Kasprowicz, let alone these guys^. He was a better Test cricketer than Brett Lee too.

McGrath/Gillespie/Stuart Clark at a pinch might have kept him out but even that's borderline and Gillespie and Clark didn't really overlap

Look, when Pollock played in Aus you'd rest easy knowing he'd do bugger all and no harm would be done by him to Australia's chances. He was a Ranga Ewen Chatfield-level bowler here. At best. In fact, Chatfield probably shades it over him.

 

[trundler]

This discussion ignores the fact that the other ATG team, The Invincibles, was stacked with all rounders.

 

[trundler]

Bro we gave games to Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Matthew Nicholson, Adam Dale, Paul Wilson, Simon Cook . . . need I go on

Sounds like an exceptional era for the Sheffield Shield.

 

[trundler]

this nonsense to explain away his average in every single country is disingenuous.

Cope harder my man.

 

[ankitj]

Mcgrath averaged 29 in SL meanwhile Srinath does 24. So according to your logic we should play Srinath over McGrath.

"Imran didn't do well in India" is a great exhibit for why analysis by checklist fails.

 

[trundler]

Imran also averaged 40 with the bat in those same matches in India so it's not like that's a decisive win for specialist bowler over all rounder anyway.

 

[Bolo.]

Look, when Pollock played in Aus you'd rest easy knowing he'd do bugger all and no harm would be done by him to Australia's chances. He was a Ranga Ewen Chatfield-level bowler here. At best. In fact, Chatfield probably shades it over him.

He is 36 batting and 34 bowling in Aus @3.55 WPM. Away vs one of the strongest teams ever.

I think the only player in modern cricket with a bogey country this good is probably Imran, the other guy you are throwing shade at.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sounds like an exceptional era for the Sheffield Shield.

I've gone on at length many times as to how Australia's back up fast bowling in the "golden" era was really not that good at all. It was just the very best 3 or 4 bowlers (including one of Warne/MacGill) were so good. Once you got down to the 6th or 7th choice quicks they were actually a lot weaker than Australia's are now

They were still better than probably any other country of the time mind you, except maybe South Africa

 

[Prince EWS]

The argument was simply if they were playing for India would you take McGrath or Imran. Does anyone here think Imran was a better fast bowler than Glenn McGrath, and to add to the point, in India. Pure and simple.

Probably not but this would have been true even if he took an extra two tailend wickets and averaged 25 instead 28 in his Ten tests there. I think it's a silly argument. Splitting hairs to this degree is unproductive at best.