It isn't a delusion. The Windies 4th option under Lloyd/Viv averaged between 27-30 while the average 1st/2nd options they faced who had the best averages of all options were averaging 29-30. That's a big gap in bowling quality and depth. Same for Australia under Waugh/Ponting, the bowlers they faced overall averaged 30 and above per bowling position while they only had 1 such position at 30.
-
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.
Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Victor Ian
International Coach
An actual team is not brim with 50+ averaging batsmen in the top 6. Are you really going to shove a 30+ batsman into the top 6 to bowl all of 10 overs max who is going to offer nothing that your top 4 bowlers don't already do? That batsman is going to be found wanting against ATG attacks.
The only reason that teams today like the extra bowler is because it helps them cover for the bowlers (who are not ATG) that also can't bowl long spells. I think you'll find all of the best bowlers are more than capable of bowling long spells. It's part of what makes them so ATG.
As for stats, the other 4 bowlers have access to all those stats. How does a 5th bowler change the implementation of that analysis? I don't think that point merits consideration.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Bowlers are better than ten years ago, not the 80s or 90s.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Actually, I AM disputing. Prove me wrong.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yup. We cannot use existing cricket logic at all.
We are talking about facing relentless ATG attacks, all capable of bowling out a side themselves on their day. The times when they are going to be called on to use a fifth bowler will be few and far between.
Best to shore up your top 6 with all pure worldclass batters or risk getting destroyed.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Teams pick five bowlers because they need them. But if you had Lillee, McGrath, Cummins and Warne, do you think Australia are going to be much worse off for not having a fifth bowler? They would clean house 90% of their games.
Coronis
International Coach
Couldn’t also be related to the fact that both those teams had much better batting lineups than their opposition.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
4 bowlers if the pitch is balanced but 5 bowlers if the pitch is really flat like in Pakistan
Socerer 01
International Captain
im not getting into another argument of “cricket was better back in those good old days, players nowadays are **** and cricket has evolved backwards” that only cricket fans seem to love and runs contrary to every other sport
i could easily ask what an extra batsman averaging 50 all the way down at 6 offers to a team that the 5 before him already didnt
you’re mistaken if you think non atg bowlers especially today can’t bowl long spells too. Stokes bowled a 11 over spell didnt he in the Ashes and he isnt anywhere near atg for eg, Siraj bowled a long spell in South Africa recently. the value of a 5th bowler is in offering something different and they allow your other atgs to bowl at 100% all the time instead of 80%, its not that atgs cant bowl long spells but surely you can see the difference between the scenarios i put up here? its not like you’re throwing in a bog average dude for that 5th bowler, more likely than not that dude is also going to be world class for his time or potentially another atg. bowling 10 overs could get you 2 wickets of the opponent and that has a big chance of being impactful
I mean the bowlers matter more in Tests. Easier to score regardless of your own batting ability if you face Lord Thakur with the new ball instead of Marshall.
I don't get this logic that more batting is generally good, bowlers at that level and in general in Tests have a larger advantage in the bat vs ball contest. Bowlers generally are able to limit runscoring more than batters can blunt wickets being taken. That's just how the game is, and how winning Tests work given that sides have to be bowled out.
Some of this sounds like you want to pick Indian ATG XIs that lose respectfully rather than be a good Test cricket team smh.
Some of this sounds like you want to pick Indian ATG XIs that lose respectfully rather than be a good Test cricket team smh.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I think that's the best way to make up for that one less batsman. As given India's bowling prowess, I really need 5.
kyear2
International Coach
Been saying this for a while.
This makes more sense to be honest.
Think about it, you say you want 5 bowlers but in doing that you're weakening the batting and the bowling. Jadeja isn't as good a batsman as VVS nor as good a bowler as Kumble.
In an ATG scenario or even cricket of the highest levels you don't want a longer or exposed tail especially for a 5th options who's going to hardly to bowl.
Someone said you need Jadeja because the batting would be weak with Kumble, only if you're dropping a batsman to play a bowler who's not that great outside of the SC anyways.
Pant, Kapil, Ash are an extremely strong tail, while including a full batting lineup and most importantly your best 4 bowlers. Quality over quantity.
Jadeja is neither an atg quality batsman nor bowler and he throws off the balance, What's the upside?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The problem is that playing only two seamers is a non-starter once you leave the SC. Can you imagine Kumble and Ashwin coming on to bowl once the new ball is done in SA or NZ? They have a genuine case for needing five bowlers compared to other ATG XIs. Hence Pant goes to no.6. Calculated risk but they have a great top 5.
Coronis
International Coach
I mean, neither of them is Nathan Lyon.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Did you mean to post in tinder and ended up posting it here?
Tests XIs should be picked to take 20 wickets and win games, not lose respectfully with the bat. How does having only 4 bowlers accomplish this? The other ATG lineups can afford it because they had better bowlers who didn't average close to 30 from first to fourth option. For India that isn't the case, so you have to pick more bowlers to offset that. The quantity of good overs being bowled will make up for it, because long spells tire people out, even ATG bowlers, and to pretend like the ATGs will be perfectly effective all the time is idiotic when we've literally seen them slog uselessly at times.
The Jadeja disrespect is unbelievable, the best AR in the world at the moment and we get **** for saying he's a lock in the Indian ATG XI. Come on, be serious please.
Coronis
International Coach
What is tinder?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I agree.
It's not disrespect. India is just blessed with many bowling ARs.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Are you looking for a Jeopardy! question?