Which would you pick for a Test bowling all-rounder spot on a team?

[ataraxia]

Lindwall is also the better test batsman. Their FC credentials are irrelevant because they did have full tests career where Lindwall scored 2 tons to Davidson's 0.

Hi,

Stop being an idiot.

Thanks, ataraxia

 

[trundler]

Hi,

Stop being an idiot.

Thanks, ataraxia

Cope and seethe in the face of facts and logic

 

[BazBall21]

I forgot how solid Davidson's first class average is. He did still play 44 tests though.

 

[trundler]

Davidson fans literally resorting to Ikki logic. Disgraceful.

 

[ataraxia]

Cope and seethe with facts and logic

Yes, this is what I am doing. For example, 2–0 is not at all a convincing century scoreline because the numbers are so small, and Lindwall played more matches which further harms any usefulness it might have. If we go into an arena where the sample size of good innings is greater, like, I dunno, FC cricket, then it's 9–5 to Davidson in fewer games. That seems more accurate.

And also centuries are overrated. I personally prefer to take the player's average score, which lends great credence to centuries but also factors in other important nuances. Ever heard of it? It's called the batting average.

 

[trundler]

Yes, this is what I am doing. For example, 2–0 is not at all a convincing century scoreline because the numbers are so small, and Lindwall played more matches which further harms any usefulness it might have. If we go into an arena where the sample size of good innings is greater, like, I dunno, FC cricket, then it's 9–5 to Davidson in fewer games. That seems more accurate

Lindwall had the same lead when he initially retired. He has more useful knocks with the bat in tests as a batsman over the same time period. His career afterwards is irrelevant. You and I both agree on longevity being equated to make comparisons fair. The only thing their FC records prove is that Davidson was better at bullying FC attacks. If he was that good a batsman he should've had more than one test where he did something with the bat.

And also centuries are overrated. I personally prefer to take the player's average score, which lends great credence to centuries but also factors in other important nuances. Ever heard of it? It's called the batting average.

Their averages are within 2 runs of each other. That does not, in any way, prove Davidson to be a vastly superior batsman when in fact he was less likely to make a big contribution with the bat, if anything. Lower order averages are meaningless. Vettori and Botham aren't the same tier as batsmen. Typical Chanderpaul fan swayed by big number.

Edit: apparently Botham averaged more than I'd remembered. Replace him with Dev and the point stands.

 

[ataraxia]

Lindwall had the same lead when he initially retired. He has more useful knocks with the bat in tests as a batsman over the same time period. His career afterwards is irrelevant. You and I both agree on longevity being equated to make comparisons fair.

I could totally almost convince myself that Lindwall is a better batter than Davidson based on longevity. That's not what I'm fighting against.

Their averages are within 2 runs of each other.

Wrong.

Vettori and Botham aren't the same tier as batsmen.

Obviously they're not; Botham is ahead of Vettori by a similar proportion to how far Davidson is better than Lindwall. As their averages reflect.

I'd rather Joe Denly than Mathew Sinclair, especially when we're talking about lower-order batters. It's funny that you think for them averages are misleading, before going on about how great and important centuries from #8 are. You're also in that round figure of 100 using a convenient cutoff. To put it another way, Davidson has 5 70+ scores – which is the bowling all-rounder's hundred more than the 1–0–0 – while Lindwall has 3. Look, I can misappropriate statistics too!

It may seem a bit out of character but I do agree that batting averages for tail-enders can be flawed, with reference to how Boult's briefly eclipsed Southee's. Obviously not as bad as centuries, but still not the best even when neither player had very many not outs. So I think we then should look at the opinion of the time to see that Southee is easily superior than Boult, or Davidson so over Lindwall. That can be measured in batting position. Lindwall normally batted 9; Davidson 7 or 8.

trundler, I'm afraid to say, it's bloody tough to be successfully revisionist about two players who played in the same team.

 

[The Sean]

To put it another way, Davidson has 5 70+ scores – which is the bowling all-rounder's hundred more than the 1–0–0 – while Lindwall has 3. Look, I can misappropriate statistics too!

I hate* to be that guy but Davidson has four 70+ scores. He made five Test half centuries in total, and one of them was an innings of 62.

* I love to be that guy

 

[trundler]

I could totally almost convince myself that Lindwall is a better batter than Davidson based on longevity. That's not what I'm fighting against.

Lindwall's output is better over their first 44 tests. Davidson averages more but eh.

Wrong.

Wow, it's 3. Totally different.

Obviously they're not; Botham is ahead of Vettori by a similar proportion to how far Davidson is better than Lindwall. As their averages reflect.

Botham is a much, much better batsman than Vettori. They're in completely different spheres as batsmen. More so than is reflected in their averages because.. Botham had more substantial innings. Their averages don't make them comparable as batsmen.

I'd rather Joe Denly than Mathew Sinclair, especially when we're talking about lower-order batters. It's funny that you think for them averages are misleading, before going on about how great and important centuries from #8 are. You're also in that round figure of 100 using a convenient cutoff. To put it another way, Davidson has 5 70+ scores – which is the bowling all-rounder's hundred more than the 1–0–0 – while Lindwall has 3. Look, I can misappropriate statistics too!

The point was that Davidson is being elevated to a status that isn't deserved based on what he did in tests. Having him over Wasim is nonsensical when a) Wasim was the better bowler and b) did just as well, if not better, in tests with the bat. Averages notwithstanding. You have to reach around to FC averages to make him a superior class of batsman which is an offensively dumb criteria that reeks of confirmation bias. And hey, Lindwall also has as many 50+ scores. At some point you do have to apply arbitrary cut offs and tons is better than any because it's.. university agreed upon to mean something. That is something Davidson failed to achieve as a batsman despite getting more of an opportunity to do so which really strains the credibility of this assertion that he's a much better batter than Lindwall.

trundler, I'm afraid to say, it's bloody tough to be successfully revisionist about two players who played in the same team.

Anyone who considers Davidson the better bowler is being as much of a revisionist as I am here and that's a fairly common take on here.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone who considers Davidson the better bowler is being as much of a revisionist as I am here and that's a fairly common take on here.

It just shows how amazing Davidson proponents are, to successfully mount the "bloody tough" bar and have him be consistently seen as a bowling ATG here.

Botham is a much, much better batsman than Vettori. They're in completely different spheres as batsmen. More so than is reflected in their averages because.. Botham had more substantial innings. Their averages don't make them comparable as batsmen.

I didn't dispute that.

The point was that Davidson is being elevated to a status that isn't deserved based on what he did in tests. Having him over Wasim is nonsensical when a) Wasim was the better bowler and b) did just as well, if not better, in tests with the bat. Averages notwithstanding. You have to reach around to FC averages to make him a superior class of batsman which is an offensively dumb criteria that reeks of confirmation bias. And hey, Lindwall also has as many 50+ scores. At some point you do have to apply arbitrary cut offs and tons is better than any because it's.. university agreed upon to mean something. That is something Davidson failed to achieve as a batsman despite getting more of an opportunity to do so which really strains the credibility of this assertion that he's a much better batter than Lindwall.

Centuries is the worst metric. Utterly awful. One of Lindwall's hundreds was in an innings of 668. Yeah – well done mate – great impactful innings. You're rating Lindwall over Davidson on one innings, when there's aeons to counteract that a level below.

 

[trundler]

Centuries is the worst metric. Utterly awful. One of Lindwall's hundreds was in an innings of 668. Yeah – well done mate – great impactful innings. You're rating Lindwall over Davidson on one innings, when there's aeons to counteract that a level below

And Davidson failed to do even that. Over their whole entire decade long careers as test batsmen.

 

[Bolo.]

Thakur and Davidson probably are comparable batsmen though. And Wasim's double ton against competent opposition definitely makes him a better batsman than Davidson and Marshall for me. Akram achieved significantly more with the bat than Marshall and Davidson in tests and is hence a better test batsman. Being worse at bullying FC trundlers doesn't make him a worse test batsman.

I would also take Ashwin over Pollock as a batsman and AR. F8 me.

1 200: Gillespie
1 100: Jerome Taylor and Bavuma (a game ago)
0 100s: Davidson

This pecking order sound about right?

I'm being facetious here. No need to point out how these don't match your exact circumstances. My point is that career quality can't be defined by an Innings or 2 (especially when just using a pretty round number to determine quality).

 

[ataraxia]

And Davidson failed to do even that. Over their whole entire decade long careers as test batsmen.

What even the sense?

trundler hates players who don't downhill ski?

 

[ataraxia]

Is this just a long game to have a pretence of consistency upon rating Yasir Shah above Dickwella?

 

[trundler]

What even the sense?

trundler hates players who don't downhill ski?

And Davidson didn't even get a downhill skiing ton! FC records are irrelevant when we're discussing guys who had full careers as test players ffs. If Davo was such a great batsman he should've done more at test level. That's the point. I could obviously cite facetious examples of guys who did better at FC level too. It's just an utterly nonsensical bit of confirmation bias laden fallaciousness.

1 200: Gillespie
1 100: Jerome Taylor and Bavuma (a game ago)
0 100s: Davidson

This pecking order sound about right?

I'm being facetious here. No need to point out how these don't match your exact circumstances. My point is that career quality can't be defined by an Innings or 2 (especially when just using a pretty round number to determine quality).

I'm still going to use this as a segue to pointing out that Botham's double ton is indeed a point in his favour as an accomplishment most other non batting-ARs failed to emulate. Good point well made.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

.Similarly Miller is a souped up Botham, so can't coexist in a poll with him as a viable candidate.

Botham Scored 10.73% of total team runs
Miller 10.68
Botham Top scored in 16.8% of innings played
Miller 10.3
Botham Took 25.2% of total team wickets
Miller 17.93

Botham played longer and in a more competitive era.

Miller is overrated .
Neither a specialist Batsman nor a frontline bowler ( WPM too low ) if you go by stats.

 

[ma1978]

Botham Scored 10.73% of total team runs
Miller 10.68
Botham Top scored in 16.8% of innings played
Miller 10.3
Botham Took 25.2% of total team wickets
Miller 17.93

Botham played longer and in a more competitive era.

Miller is overrated .
Neither a specialist Batsman nor a frontline bowler ( WPM too low ) if you go by stats.

Thank you, correct about Miller. This forum is obsessed with Miller in the same way that they are obsessed with Jadeja because they see the shiny averages and can’t look beyond that. To be an ATG all rounder, you have to be the best in the team at one discipline and able to get in based on the other. Neither Miller nor Jadeja qualifies. Botham, Dev, Imran and Hadlee all do as do Kallis, Sobers.

 

[Xix2565]

Jadeja qualifies when you get your head out of your ass tbh. Can be difficult to see much from there.

 

[The Sean]

Botham Scored 10.73% of total team runs
Miller 10.68
Botham Top scored in 16.8% of innings played
Miller 10.3
Botham Took 25.2% of total team wickets
Miller 17.93

Botham played longer and in a more competitive era.

Miller is overrated .
Neither a specialist Batsman nor a frontline bowler ( WPM too low ) if you go by stats.

Thank you, correct about Miller. This forum is obsessed with Miller in the same way that they are obsessed with Jadeja because they see the shiny averages and can’t look beyond that. To be an ATG all rounder, you have to be the best in the team at one discipline and able to get in based on the other. Neither Miller nor Jadeja qualifies. Botham, Dev, Imran and Hadlee all do as do Kallis, Sobers.

It's a pretty special CW moment to have two posts so wilfully ignorant one after the other. We've been blessed.

 

[Socerer 01]

And Davidson didn't even get a downhill skiing ton! FC records are irrelevant when we're discussing guys who had full careers as test players ffs. If Davo was such a great batsman he should've done more at test level. That's the point. I could obviously cite facetious examples of guys who did better at FC level too. It's just an utterly nonsensical bit of confirmation bias laden fallaciousness.

I'm still going to use this as a segue to pointing out that Botham's double ton is indeed a point in his favour as an accomplishment most other non batting-ARs failed to emulate. Good point well made.

you have been infected by subs checklist virus now