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

[_00_deathscar]

No, not really, when you are just basing it on stats. You can try and say Kallis is not in the league of Tendulkar and Lara all you like, but the Shrek put up numbers that are not so easy to brush aside. He may not be ***y (neither was Shrek) but he did the job well enough to outgun them in the years he played. Tendulkar and Lara can't even get near an average of 503 in Zimbabwe.

Why would you pick Tendulkar or Lara over Kallis. He has done everything they have done in a comparable way and had the harder home conditions of the trio.

Kallis > Sachin/Lara is a bad, bad take as a primary batsman.
He certainly was a very valuable cricketer but that’s why you stick him 5 or 6 something and don’t let him compete with Sachin/Lara — but then he’s competing with Sobers.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

This is cheating level of brilliance. Such crazy numbers by opposition and by host country. Why did he ruin his legacy by joining politics?
View attachment 36935

He ruined his legacy way before joining politics by abandoning his daughter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

People putting Kallis up on the level with Sachin & Lara as a batsman is toxic behaviour. Even worse than doing it with Sanga

 

[Adorable Asshole]

It's just blatantly false. The man is one of 3 players to score a century and take a 10 wicket haul in the same test.

The culprit may be a certain gentleman who has devoted his last 10 years to peddling this myth despite being thoroughly rebuked and debunked several times.

Who? Burgey?

 

[shortpitched713]

**** I hate when you want to say something and then find the thread has moved on 10+ pages.

Anyway... In an ATG team I like the idea of lower order batting as tie breaker. Yes, I'd probably go Hadlee over McGrath, but it's not so clear cut. McGrath achieved a large part of his numbers in the roads era. The gap between Hadlee and him in bowling is not as small as it looks. But I could easily take Hadlee as well. But Imran doesn't get a look in. His numbers are built on two different players. He was immense as a bowler, or as a lower order bat, but not together. Hadlee did his thing across his career. Plus Hadlee won't have cameras watching him work the ball as an issue to worry about.

Here's how I did it for my 8-11. My top 7 were all set as specialist batsmen, and the only bowling I got out of it was Sobers, who while commendable, isn't adding more than spelling my main 4 bowlers, in an all time context.

11 is McGrath, easy. His bowling record is that much better than everyone else's that I don't think batting at 11 could possibly play any role. Next comes spinners, because the second best bowler in my mind is Murali. Murali >> Warne as a bowler in my mind, so although you can consider Warne for batting, as we'll see later the most likely position for the spinner ends up at 10 anyway, and given what I see as Murali's superiority with the ball, especially against ATG opposition, I pick him pretty easily.

That leaves me with 8 and 9, for a new ball partner for McGrath, and change bowler, from these candidates:

Imran Khan

Shaun Pollock

Richard Hadlee

Ian Botham

Kapil Dev

Malcolm Marshall

Curtly Ambrose

Dale Steyn

Botham, and Dev are out. They give up too much with the ball, even as a change bowler at 8.

From there, first I tackle the new ball partner, because I think it will be a higher value position. As pure bowlers I have Steyn a minuscule ahead of Ambrose as the best bowlers. But from what I've seen Ambrose is better of the two with the bat, enough to barely tip it in his favor between the two at #9. Except that Marshall is significantly better with the bat than both of them, so I'd actually pick him at 9 of the 3.

Actually there are only 3 real candidates. Hadlee for me is barely better than Marshall with the ball, and much, much better as a bat. But he is competing with Imran and Pollock. As a new ball partner though, I think he will do the most with the ball alongside McGrath, chip in with the bat enough at 9 to hold off Pollock's contribution, who in my opinion is the 2nd best bowler and 2nd best batsman of these 3.

At 8, as a change bowler, Pollock is again unlucky, as I think Imran provides enough more with the bat than him to keep him out, while still doing an excellent job as a change bowler.

So the best possible tail for mine, ends up looking like this:

08 Imran
09 Hadlee
10 Murali
11 McGrath

With the overall bowling attack being:

McGrath
Hadlee
Imran
Murali
Sobers

I think that's the right balance, given my opinion of where the ATG bowlers rank, and also taking into account their batting contribution, which I think is usually simply glossed over in the conventional wisdom.

 

[Bolo.]

Nah bro. It wasn't your first post, you kept arguing and made multiple erroneous assertions.

If it was a misunderstanding as you're claiming you would have literally just said "i was joking" or "i didn't mean it that way" on your second response rather than arguing back digging a deeper hole. Also it would also make your whole line of arguing irrelevant to the discussion about Pollock making the team anyway. So it's either wrong, irrelevant or both.

Not letting you out of it that easily!

Somewhat tongue in cheek is not the same thing as passing something of as a complete joke.

I'm making a completely accurate statement according to the criteria he played down- Watson did get into the side, and his career numbers are are very similar to pollock in Aus, just worse. Why would I back out of a correct statement?

What makes it tongue in cheek is taking him literally on the conditions he put down, and not picking a player who was worse/played more. His comment was too clearly stirring and lacking in merit to deserve more than a cheap gotcha.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Somewhat tongue in cheek is not the same thing as passing something of as a complete joke.

I'm making a completely accurate statement according to the criteria he played down- Watson did get into the side, and his career numbers are are very similar to pollock in Aus, just worse. Why would I back out of a correct statement?

What makes it tongue in cheek is taking him literally on the conditions he put down, and not picking a player who was worse/played more. His comment was too clearly stirring and lacking in merit to deserve more than a cheap gotcha.

That's great but doesn't explain why you kept arguing making numerous false assertions afterward

 

[trundler]

Anyway I'm glad we've established ATG all rounders would improve '80s WI as well as '00s Australia.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's great but doesn't explain why you kept arguing making numerous false assertions afterward

Agreed, sus actions.

Lynch Bolo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway I'm glad we've established ATG all rounders would improve '80s WI as well as '00s Australia.

who said otherwise? That's real dumb (assuming we're talking the likes of Kallis, Sobers, Miller & not Stokes, Flintoff or Ronnie Irani)

 

[Bolo.]

That's great but doesn't explain why you kept arguing making numerous false assertions afterward

I'm entirely lost as to what my multiple false assertions were.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm entirely lost as to what my multiple false assertions were.

Well duh, otherwise you wouldn't have said them

 

[subshakerz]

As pure bowlers I have Steyn a minuscule ahead of Ambrose as the best bowlers. But from what I've seen Ambrose is better of the two with the bat, enough to barely tip it in his favor between the two at #9.

Lol if you factoring in Ambrose's batting skills in the equation as if it makes a difference, you are doing something wrong.

 

[shortpitched713]

Lol if you factoring in Ambrose's batting skills in the equation as if it makes a difference, you are doing something wrong.

Every ****ing run counts. Garner for batting in ODIs isn't just a meme, it's a reality of the slim, hard fought margins of the game at the highest level.

But also, that's more of an indication, that I don't have more than a hair breath of difference between the two as Test bowlers. Probably like Steyn's approach for variety, but Ambrose offers variety and complements McGrath too, in his own way.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Every ****ing run counts. Garner for batting in ODIs isn't just a meme, it's a reality of the slim, hard fought margins of the game at the highest level.

But also, that's more of an indication, that I don't have more than a hair breath of difference between the two as Test bowlers. Probably like Steyn's approach for variety, but Ambrose offers variety and complements McGrath too, in his own way.

See @Prince EWS Garner batting >>

 

[kyear2]

It's just blatantly false. The man is one of 3 players to score a century and take a 10 wicket haul in the same test.

The culprit may be a certain gentleman who has devoted his last 10 years to peddling this myth despite being thoroughly rebuked and debunked several times.

Genuinely hope you're not referring to me, my argument for the two Imran's was based on way different criteria than batting and bowling.

Only time I brought that up was when we had a discussing with regards to disregarding later tours for his bowling, and was pointed out those years also added to his batting reputation and couldn't have it both ways.
I have some small issues with regards to his batting, but not with regards to the duality and nothing I've mentioned.
And as I said in the comparison thread when discussing Imran and Kallis, he definitely wins with regards to his second skill.

 

[kyear2]

Anyway I'm glad we've established ATG all rounders would improve '80s WI as well as '00s Australia.

Was that ever disputed though, Burgey was kidding, and I said it would have improved, but they still managed to be dominant without them.

 

[trundler]

Was that ever disputed though, Burgey was kidding, and I said it would have improved, but they still managed to be dominant without them.

WI managed to be dominant with a mediocre #6 and Australia with Lee though. Invincibles had Loxton at 6. No great side has ever needed to max out all skills to be dominant because other sides are much weaker anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

Every ****ing run counts. Garner for batting in ODIs isn't just a meme, it's a reality of the slim, hard fought margins of the game at the highest level.

But also, that's more of an indication, that I don't have more than a hair breath of difference between the two as Test bowlers. Probably like Steyn's approach for variety, but Ambrose offers variety and complements McGrath too, in his own way.

Both Steyn and Ambrose are classic tailenders. Mining them for runs is just being greedy.

 

[shortpitched713]

Both Steyn and Ambrose are classic tailenders. Mining them for runs is just being greedy.

Greed is good. But yeah, Ambrose is not as bad with the bat. That is worth something, if not at his end, then at the other end, at least.

Edit: Also, this is for one of them to bat at 9. At 10 I wouldn't care, and would probably go Steyn. You can't go wrong with either at that position though.