Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
If Mudassar Nazar had been Indian not Pakistani he probably would've opened the bowling with Kapil.
-
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.
Why Do ATG XI's Have More Pacers Than Specialist Spin Bowlers?
- Thread starter SillyCowCorner1
- Start date
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Then why did you reply to me? Don't you have anything better to do?
Coronis
International Coach
None of us have anything better to do. Why do you think we spend so much time arguing about this **** on an online forum?
Nope. I'm saying he was a better player. I think they were fairly close as bowlers at the times Watson could actually bowl (which I realise might ruffle some tail feathers), but that was so infrequent that Lee is far ahead as a bowler.
Lee was better than most of the bowlers that got ditched after a game or three. I think he was stuck with for too long, but he was certainly one of the best options... you don't misselect by much for that many years when there are clearly better picks.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not before 2007 he wasn't.
Irrelevant anyway, Watson does not make the 2005-07 Aus team stronger.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Obviously not. I’m here to torment you and drive you to a ban when you eventually get the shits
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Your face is enough to torment anybody tbf.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
At this point falling for Burgey bait should be a bannable offence tbh
kyear2
International Coach
How did this argument start, someone said the two greatest teams of all time didn't have all rounders and did it principally with specialist batsmen and bowlers.
This then spawned the proposition that if they had the opportunity that either team would have welcomed Pollock or Imran. To which I theorized that the chiefs would have welcomed Barry Sanders, but at the end of the day they managed to win the Superbowl with a 5th round rookie running back.
The argument then shifted to if India had a choice between McGrath or Imran or Pollock in the '80's which would they choose, and I had the audacity to suggest that McGrath was a better bowler than Imran and to take the comparison further, better in India, based on the one measurement that we use for every other comparison on the forum, their stats in that country. This rehashed an argument with regards to Imran's away stats not being applicable and doesn't prove anything without context.
I watch cricket, I especially watch high level competitive cricket, I've also grown up watching two of the greatest teams of all time exert their dominance on the competition. I've also seen some of the greatest players who's ever played the game.
I've heard the argument from the bat deep crowd, everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. But my counter argument has been if you have to rely on your no 10 to consistently save the team, you have bigger problems and never in the history of the game has bowling all rounders been linked to or seen as critical to winning teams.
But as I watch the game, not every team is an all rampaging force and weaker teams and those in more evenly matched contests, every run may count. But if your top order keeps getting blown away, no tail will be able to consistently withstand said same attack. And then there's the question what sacrifice or compromise of bowling quality would be required to get those few extra runs at the end of the innings. And that's also the discounting of rear guard action mounted by non "all rounders" that was equally valuable. I propose even a weaker team would try to bowl out the opposition for less than try to strengthen the tail for hopeful hypothetical runs based on a secondary skill. But in everything balance.
I also see the value of 5th bowlers, not as match winners, but snagging the odd wicket or holding up an end when the primary guys are resting or awaiting the new ball. The fact that Root was required to bowl so many overs (taking some critical scalps along the way) in the recent ashes proves the value of having a viable 5th option, which quite frankly he isn't. They aren't match winners, but assist with the rotation and on occasion delivers a wicket.
I also have watched enough cricket to know that slip catching is just as important or more so than the other two. I posted a video on one of the threads of McGrath and some of the amazing catching support he had and how those contributed to some of those victories. Similarly the West Indies had an equally superb cordon that contributed to our dominant period as well.
As I said earlier, secondary skills should be used as a tie breaker rather than a determining factor in selection. Pick the best batsmen and bowlers and if there's a tight selection, then it's acceptable if not negligible not to select the one that brings a secondary skill(s) to the table.
And I also understand that one's perspective on this argument can be regional in nature.
If you grew up in the West Indies, Australia, England during either of the two periods of dominance, you don't place such importance in batting deep because quite frankly it wasn't a critical factor to success or loosing. May also rate slip fielding higher as they were the willing accomplices of the bowlers and their impact was palpable.
If you grew up in the SC or NZ and Imran, Hadlee, Dev were the back bones of the resistance and spin is a staple of the attacks, especially in India and SL, where for Miagra Murali brought relevance and even home dominance for the country, you would see things differently. And that's fine too.
So while perspective is reality, so is reality. The great teams were able to do so without al rounders, it doesn't mean they don't have value, but does mean that they may not be as critically important as going with the specialist if they aren't better. But that's just my perspective.
This then spawned the proposition that if they had the opportunity that either team would have welcomed Pollock or Imran. To which I theorized that the chiefs would have welcomed Barry Sanders, but at the end of the day they managed to win the Superbowl with a 5th round rookie running back.
The argument then shifted to if India had a choice between McGrath or Imran or Pollock in the '80's which would they choose, and I had the audacity to suggest that McGrath was a better bowler than Imran and to take the comparison further, better in India, based on the one measurement that we use for every other comparison on the forum, their stats in that country. This rehashed an argument with regards to Imran's away stats not being applicable and doesn't prove anything without context.
I watch cricket, I especially watch high level competitive cricket, I've also grown up watching two of the greatest teams of all time exert their dominance on the competition. I've also seen some of the greatest players who's ever played the game.
I've heard the argument from the bat deep crowd, everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. But my counter argument has been if you have to rely on your no 10 to consistently save the team, you have bigger problems and never in the history of the game has bowling all rounders been linked to or seen as critical to winning teams.
But as I watch the game, not every team is an all rampaging force and weaker teams and those in more evenly matched contests, every run may count. But if your top order keeps getting blown away, no tail will be able to consistently withstand said same attack. And then there's the question what sacrifice or compromise of bowling quality would be required to get those few extra runs at the end of the innings. And that's also the discounting of rear guard action mounted by non "all rounders" that was equally valuable. I propose even a weaker team would try to bowl out the opposition for less than try to strengthen the tail for hopeful hypothetical runs based on a secondary skill. But in everything balance.
I also see the value of 5th bowlers, not as match winners, but snagging the odd wicket or holding up an end when the primary guys are resting or awaiting the new ball. The fact that Root was required to bowl so many overs (taking some critical scalps along the way) in the recent ashes proves the value of having a viable 5th option, which quite frankly he isn't. They aren't match winners, but assist with the rotation and on occasion delivers a wicket.
I also have watched enough cricket to know that slip catching is just as important or more so than the other two. I posted a video on one of the threads of McGrath and some of the amazing catching support he had and how those contributed to some of those victories. Similarly the West Indies had an equally superb cordon that contributed to our dominant period as well.
As I said earlier, secondary skills should be used as a tie breaker rather than a determining factor in selection. Pick the best batsmen and bowlers and if there's a tight selection, then it's acceptable if not negligible not to select the one that brings a secondary skill(s) to the table.
And I also understand that one's perspective on this argument can be regional in nature.
If you grew up in the West Indies, Australia, England during either of the two periods of dominance, you don't place such importance in batting deep because quite frankly it wasn't a critical factor to success or loosing. May also rate slip fielding higher as they were the willing accomplices of the bowlers and their impact was palpable.
If you grew up in the SC or NZ and Imran, Hadlee, Dev were the back bones of the resistance and spin is a staple of the attacks, especially in India and SL, where for Miagra Murali brought relevance and even home dominance for the country, you would see things differently. And that's fine too.
So while perspective is reality, so is reality. The great teams were able to do so without al rounders, it doesn't mean they don't have value, but does mean that they may not be as critically important as going with the specialist if they aren't better. But that's just my perspective.
Last edited:
He did make the team. Everything else in this conversation is secondary to this point. The fact that he did it at a time when he was rubbish and Aus were peaking enhances this point, rather than detracting from it.
Did he improve peak AUS? Very much no. Would he have improved them if his peak (or just the average of his career) had coincided with theirs? Typically not IMO*, but in games where they were going in with 5 bowlers, yes.
*Peak Aus were in an unusual situation where a decent AR was often going to be less valuable to them than a mediocre bowler. I think I'm typically picking Lee for example above him, despite him being a worse player.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Ok
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Virtually any other team than 80s WI that has a weak tail has suffered because of it.
In this ATG XI exercise, we assume they face a similarly skilled team.
The difference between Imran and McGrath as bowlers in minor compared to the value of having a full fledge lower order bat at no.8 to prevent the opposition from skittling your tail.
kyear2
International Coach
And I guess we will agree to disagree on that.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, the whole 'ATG teams didn't need all rounders' thing is irrelevant because they did not face other ATG teams and they simply did not have good all rounders available.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The idea that Imran wouldn't make runs at 7 or 8 in an ATG context is baseless. Bowlers aren't robots, it's frustrating even for the very best sometimes getting through a stubborn lower middle order. Having someone like Imran in there would allow Sobers and Gilchrist to flourish even more and build a partnership instead of having their strengths blunted by having a complete mug at the other end. Genuinely have no idea where this entire line of thinking came from? If anything, in an ATG context, you want as much depth as possible to maximise run output.
This whole discussion is a non starter because some people think Imran wasn't really significantly worse than the top tier ATG pacers and some people don't. The batting point makes no sense, it'd definitely add value.
This whole discussion is a non starter because some people think Imran wasn't really significantly worse than the top tier ATG pacers and some people don't. The batting point makes no sense, it'd definitely add value.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The problem here is Imran and McGrath are different type of bowlers anyways.
Again, in the real world, captains prefer to have contrasting bowlers to give you options, and may select a bowler with specific bowler skills. No captain would choose Hadlee and McGrath in the same lineup if they can pick Akram and McGrath or Steyn and Hadlee unless its a grassy wicket.
So in an ATG XI, you would need:
Conventional swing types like Marshall, Lillee and Trueman
Seamer types like Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose
Reverse swing types like Imran, Steyn and Akram
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Imran didn't even need a good slip cordon to put up similar bowling numbers as McGrath . And we've established how important slip catching is.
Imagine what he'd do in an ATG team with good catchers.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yup. If you factor in bowler fatigue, potential to stretch partnerships, late order hitting, etc. we are talking about a net 30 to 50 run increase in innings output on average just by having a proper lower order bat.
