Why is it viewed as more important

[kyear2]

Why do certain members of the community seem to have a heater affinity for bowling all rounders over other dual types of cricketers. I've made my arguments and the best I've received is that everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. That doesn't quantifiably indicate how it's contributed to wins or even great teams, not even anecdotally. It could even be argued that it could be a sign of a brittle middle order.

So why do we believe they are better than batting all rounders, batsmen who are great specialist slips or even the rarest beast of all, the ATG batsman that's the the 5th bowler and specialist slip. I think all three are equal in value to a team and contributes to success. The difference being is that one is a safeguard / back up plan, one is there in utilitarian role and the last helps win games. So basically if **** goes bad, utility option and if all goes right.

Please the purpose is not to turn this into a Sobers vs Imran thread. Just hopefully for once, just discussion.

Looking for rational discussion, not shortpitched's beliefs that the top 10 players in history were all bowlers so ergo. We're just discussing / ranking the secondary options.

 

[Socerer 01]

someone on reddit made a post that delved into this, might link that if i find it

 

[Sunil1z]

Just like you have a preference for pace bowlers over spin bowlers, other posters also have every right to have their favourites.

 

[Socerer 01]

Just like you have a preference for pace bowlers over spin bowlers, other posters also have every right to have their favourites.

the biggest indicator of said preference is blud sneaking in “specialist slip fielders” as equals like we wouldnt notice

here is the link fwiw

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/s/r0uOZrwUzn

 

[kyear2]

A few months ago, @Prince EWS and I conducted an all star game like draft, just trying to pick two equally strong teams, hopefully the stranger knew, but I digress.

He had Imran and Sobers, I started with Bradman and Marshall (win already, I know), but I recall thinking about the most important positions to fill.

It was immediately to get at least 2 of the top 4 batsmen and bowlers, so Hobbs and Hadlee (McGrath was well gone)was secured, Hobbs being especially valuable being the best opener as well. My next immediate concerns in my head, and possibly only my head, was to get my 5th bowler and 2nd slip. Since that conveniently comes in one package, the guy I then feared missing out on was Kallis, because Sobers was already gone and I needed that utility more than anything else. To be fair, Hadlee also filled that dual role similarly to Hobbs, a top 4 bowler who also could fill the no. 8 spot.

So outside of Bradman and Maco, my next priorities all doubled up with best batsman and specialist opener (only 4 truly great ones in history), best remaining bowler and no. 8 bat, and batsman, slip and 5th bowler. With Kallis being left for later as so thought he was safe, he's the one I literally panicked about getting. So yes, I get the value of all 3. And believe it or not, I was more nervous about the slip fielding than the bowling. For me the 5th bowler doesn't need to be great, just turn your hand over for 20 max overs a match and don't release pressure, any wickets are a bonus. Especially in an outfit like this, the role is fulfilled by just not being a liability. But the catching, there's literally only two of those guys that even match the batting credentials to make such a team, Hammond and to a lesser extent Lara yes, but they were both 1st slip guys, didn't notice enough of Viv and Smith is seen by many to be too inconsistent. So outside of my top two, he's just as vital to my team as Hobbs and Hadlee.

Just watching that Steyn vid today of all of his wickets, couldn't avoid being reminded (if that's needed) as to how vital those special guys are. Some of the grabs he took were ridiculous, and as good as anything anyone else could pull off, and surely a lesser talent wouldn't have taken half of them.

But finally, and admittedly, after Marshall was selected Hadlee was my immediate thought ahead of McGrath, so when my competitive juices were flowing, that was the selection I made. So I have to acknowledge that even though I love Glenn as a bowler, and he and Marshall would be without doubt the best opening pair, you lose so little with Paddles, that he would have to be the pick over Pidge.

So yeah, all three being invaluable to a team, and depending on needs, one possibly slightly pipping the others. Sobers was so critical because the bowling at times was atrocious and he had to shoulder too heavy a load, Jadeja because of the current frailty of the middle order, but the slip guys are always valuable, because good or bad you need to take every chance and they tend to go with more frequency and difficulty to second.

And no I'm not bored, went to the beach, just got in from tennis (decided for some reason at this age to switch back from a one to a two handed) and watching FP1. Let's go anyone else than Max btw.

 

[Coronis]

A few months ago, @Prince EWS and I conducted an all star game like draft, just trying to pick two equally strong teams, hopefully the stranger knew, but I digress.

He had Imran and Sobers, I started with Bradman and Marshall (win already, I know), but I recall thinking about the most important positions to fill.

It was immediately to get at least 2 of the top 4 batsmen and bowlers, so Hobbs and Hadlee (McGrath was well gone)was secured, Hobbs being especially valuable being the best opener as well. My next immediate concerns in my head, and possibly only my head, was to get my 5th bowler and 2nd slip. Since that conveniently comes in one package, the guy I then feared missing out on was Kallis, because Sobers was already gone and I needed that utility more than anything else. To be fair, Hadlee also filled that dual role similarly to Hobbs, a top 4 bowler who also could fill the no. 8 spot.

So outside of Bradman and Maco, my next priorities all doubled up with best batsman and specialist opener (only 4 truly great ones in history), best remaining bowler and no. 8 bat, and batsman, slip and 5th bowler. With Kallis being left for later as so thought he was safe, he's the one I literally panicked about getting. So yes, I get the value of all 3. And believe it or not, I was more nervous about the slip fielding than the bowling. For me the 5th bowler doesn't need to be great, just turn your hand over for 20 max overs a match and don't release pressure, any wickets are a bonus. Especially in an outfit like this, the role is fulfilled by just not being a liability. But the catching, there's literally only two of those guys that even match the batting credentials to make such a team, Hammond and to a lesser extent Lara yes, but they were both 1st slip guys, didn't notice enough of Viv and Smith is seen by many to be too inconsistent. So outside of my top two, he's just as vital to my team as Hobbs and Hadlee.

Just watching that Steyn vid today of all of his wickets, couldn't avoid being reminded (if that's needed) as to how vital those special guys are. Some of the grabs he took were ridiculous, and as good as anything anyone else could pull off, and surely a lesser talent wouldn't have taken half of them.

But finally, and admittedly, after Marshall was selected Hadlee was my immediate thought ahead of McGrath, so when my competitive juices were flowing, that was the selection I made. So I have to acknowledge that even though I love Glenn as a bowler, and he and Marshall would be without doubt the best opening pair, you lose so little with Paddles, that he would have to be the pick over Pidge.

So yeah, all three being invaluable to a team, and depending on needs, one possibly slightly pipping the others. Sobers was so critical because the bowling at times was atrocious and he had to shoulder too heavy a load, Jadeja because of the current frailty of the middle order, but the slip guys are always valuable, because good or bad you need to take every chance and they tend to go with more frequency and difficulty to second.

And no I'm not bored, went to the beach, just got in from tennis (decided for some reason at this age to switch back from a one to a two handed) and watching FP1. Let's go anyone else than Max btw.

I love racing as much as anyone (Supercars, F1, Indycar and WEC this weekend yay yay) but watching a practice session is literally the definition of being bored and having nothing else to do, no?

 

[kyear2]

Just like you have a preference for pace bowlers over spin bowlers, other posters also have every right to have their favourites.

No one said they didn't, unlike some who tries to change people's minds, I'm just trying to understand.

And this isn't about individual players, it's about philosophies and though processes. Not another ATG discussion.

And of course you have the option to ignore.

 

[kyear2]

I love racing as much as anyone (Supercars, F1, Indycar and WEC this weekend yay yay) but watching a practice session is literally the definition of being bored and having nothing else to do, no?

I try to watch them all, especially FP2 though. But the Sprint shootout is up next so, may as well watch both.

 

[ankitj]

I think in a real team they are both equally important. 'Everyone has to bat' is a good argument in favour of bowling all-rounders. But in favour of batting all-rounders is the fact that they allow teams to play a 5 man attack without compromising on batting strength i.e. You can play 6 full batsmen + w/k and yet have 5 bowling options. With bowling all-rounders if you want a 5 man attack you are forced to play 5 full batsmen + w/k. I think batting all-rounders can be more valuable even for team ballance.

 

[Coronis]

I try to watch them all, especially FP2 though. But the Sprint shootout is up next so, may as well watch both.

Quali sessions are good but I’ve just never been able to sit through any practice session and enjoy it. Too much stuff that doesn’t matter to me the viewer - it’d be like watching a cricket team practice tbh - I know its important but it just bores me to watch.

 

[ankitj]

Sobers vs Imran

I think they are pretty neck to neck. An argument can be made in favour of either. What do others think?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know but is Ashwin an ATG?

 

[Sunil1z]

No one said they didn't, unlike some who tries to change people's minds, I'm just trying to understand.

And this isn't about individual players, it's about philosophies and though processes. Not another ATG discussion.

And of course you have the option to ignore.

I would like to keep it short after reading some of your arguments in last 3 days

I do believe Marshall and Sobers are GOAT bowler and allrounder but the gap between them and next best is slim and other posters have right to believe McGrath/ Hadlee as bowler and Imran as allrounder is above them .

Similar to Tendulkar vs Lara where I believe Tendulkar is better but don’t get irritated when Lara fans feel Lara is better .

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why do certain members of the community seem to have a heater affinity for bowling all rounders over other dual types of cricketers. I've made my arguments and the best I've received is that everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. That doesn't quantifiably indicate how it's contributed to wins or even great teams, not even anecdotally. It could even be argued that it could be a sign of a brittle middle order.

So why do we believe they are better than batting all rounders, batsmen who are great specialist slips or even the rarest beast of all, the ATG batsman that's the the 5th bowler and specialist slip. I think all three are equal in value to a team and contributes to success. The difference being is that one is a safeguard / back up plan, one is there in utilitarian role and the last helps win games. So basically if **** goes bad, utility option and if all goes right.

I've pointed this out before, you are looking at this comparing the secondary skills of batting and bowling all rounders. Even if you believe the secondary skill of 5th bowling option provided by a batting AR > lower order batting provided by a bowling AR, the fact still remains that the majority of us acknowledge that the primary skill of top tier pace bowling is more valuable than the primary skill of top tier batting.

ATG fast bowlers are consistently the greatest match winners throughout the course of test history and even you admit this. This by itself is a good argument for considering bowling ARs more valuable than batting ARs, without even coming to their secondary attributes.

 

[Bolo.]

It's easy to see the the value the value of bowling ARs. At a basic level, you can just add runs or partnership runs and get some idea. Everyone bats.

It's much harder to estimate the value of quality fielding/a batting AR.

For fielding, you never know when another player would have taken a catch. Or what a catch is actually worth. A guy knicking off on one ball might do the same on the next.

A batting AR is going to be picking up more expensive wickets than their teammates. In a sense they are costing runs everytime they bowl. Their value comes more from the ability to balance a team around them, rest other bowlers, and get through overs when the ball isn't doing much. It's really hard to quantify value here. At times it may actually be negative.

 

[ankitj]

There is probably a reason why there are more bowling all-rounders than batting all-rounders. The reason might be same 'everyone has to bat'. Many like Hammond, Worrell, Waugh didn't end up bowling enough to be considered proper all-rounders. For a batting all-rounder to be recognized as an all-rounder, they have to have a higher skill in secondary department than do the bowling all rounders.

Hence, batting all-rounders (those recognized) > bowling all-rounder. QED.

 

[subshakerz]

Your whole argument is reductive.

This just depends on the ability of the all-rounder and the dynamics of the team.

Teams with weak bowling may prefer a batting allrounder, weak batting a bowling allrounder.

Also depends how good their second discipline is. Someone like Imran or Sobers can legitimately allow for an extra bowler or batsmen in most average teams.

However, in ATG teams, Imran will go to no.8.and Sobers won't be anything more than a 5th bowler.

I will say, all things equal, I think teams get more value from a stronger tail than a better 5th bowling option. So bowling ARs are marginally more valuable.

 

[kyear2]

It's easy to see the the value the value of bowling ARs. At a basic level, you can just add runs or partnership runs and get some idea. Everyone bats.

It's much harder to estimate the value of quality fielding/a batting AR.

For fielding, you never know when another player would have taken a catch. Or what a catch is actually worth. A guy knicking off on one ball might do the same on the next.

A batting AR is going to be picking up more expensive wickets than their teammates. In a sense they are costing runs everytime they bowl. Their value comes more from the ability to balance a team around them, rest other bowlers, and get through overs when the ball isn't doing much. It's really hard to quantify value here. At times it may actually be negative.

Ummm

I've seen matches won by bowling all-rounders and rank tailenders alike, I've seen matches won by spectacular catches and while it's a extreme example I've seen a series potentially lost in the cordon as well only last year. I seen Kallis win matches with the ball, Sobers did a couple times as well, Root played a vital role in the last Indian series as well.

I disagree with the premise that batting all-rounders bowling contributions are negative. The only time they bowl extended spells are if the primary guys are struggling, or they are bowling better than the alternative options. A 5th options is a necessity in any team, because don't think there's ever been a match when only 4 bowlers turned over their hands. The absence of one is a liability that either causes the bowlers to bowl longer spells than optimal or come back earlier than is optimal. Even Root in the last series provided an invaluable balance that's difficult to qualify. I know I use NFL analogies too often, but running backs yards are easier to quantify, they aren't more important than your left tackle though.

As great as McWarne, Marshall and co, even Steyn and co were, the Australian and West Indian teams don't reach the heights they did without what was not good, but phenomenal support from their cordons. Even that South African team doesn't reach the level of dominance either. Waugh, Taylor, Ponting etc, Lloyd, Richards, Richardson, Kallis, Smith, deVilliers, were invaluable to their bowlers. I know we love to say that in close matches we need to have all the batting we can get, but what's more costly than dropping the other team's best batsman to see him go on to either cost runs or time. Dropped catches sinks morale, blinders does the exact opposite, we've all seen it. And as they say, catches win matches. Even Ambrose, Murali, Hadlee benefitted from superb catching behind them, and their numbers and careers aren't quite the same without Mahela, Hooper, Richardson etc. And to say you don't know who else would have caught them, I can equally say who's to say the best guys wouldn't have scored the 25 no to save the match? The fact is that they did.
Yes, batting depth is beneficial, sometimes even crucial, though if it's crucial too often, similar as to how Sobers was needed so often, it's generally signs of bigger problems. Though we can all agree that it's a luxury to have. And yes I watch American sports a tad much, and my view of our lovely sport is formed as much by the analytics trend as it is from watching the sport as well. Value is quantified in ways that spreadsheets just don't capture. Back on point, yes batting depth is more than useful at times, and when you're 7 down after tea on day 5, it seems like there's nothing more important.
But there's also the instances that some of these averages are inflated by high scoring draws and dead match situations where the slopes are pristine for down hill skiing. Not a criticism by any means, but the numbers aren't always what they seem. Last football analogy promise, but when Dak played in the Cowboys loss last year, yeah his stats looked amazing, but it was mainly empty calories, the game was already lost. That's not to diminish the context of the lower order batsmen, just an attempt to place in context.

So basically, yeah... In an ideal situation you should have at least 1 person specialized in all 3 disciplines.

I know we stress one way over the other, but where exactly has it proven to elevate a team to "greatness". Ideally the late order guys are there to bail out of undesirable positions or to efficiently build on a lead. Similarly the 4th / 5th option can never be counted on to carry an attack, but can sometimes be the one to break a key partnership. The cordon is there to make sure the bowlers efforts don't go to waste, and the ability to take the half chances can too turn the course of matches.

My experiences are different to everyone's, but I've seen great teams operate and thrive without two of those, never seen them operate without one, hence my belief that it's at least in par with the others. Forget Sobers or Hammond, I'll take a Richie Richardson all day, every day, and if you you can find guys who do do all 3? Gold.
Hammond, Chappell, Hadlee, Wasim all these guys are just amazingly versatile and useful and I just find it inconsistent and lacking nuance that only one is normally factored in, deemed important or used to elevate a player.

 

[Coronis]

Ummm

I've seen matches won by bowling all-rounders and rank tailenders alike, I've seen matches won by spectacular catches and while it's a extreme example I've seen a series potentially lost in the cordon as well only last year. I seen Kallis win matches with the ball, Sobers did a couple times as well, Root played a vital role in the last Indian series as well.

I disagree with the premise that batting all-rounders bowling contributions are negative. The only time they bowl extended spells are if the primary guys are struggling, or they are bowling better than the alternative options. A 5th options is a necessity in any team, because don't think there's ever been a match when only 4 bowlers turned over their hands. The absence of one is a liability that either causes the bowlers to bowl longer spells than optimal or come back earlier than is optimal. Even Root in the last series provided an invaluable balance that's difficult to qualify. I know I use NFL analogies too often, but running backs yards are easier to quantify, they aren't more important than your left tackle though.

As great as McWarne, Marshall and co, even Steyn and co were, the Australian and West Indian teams don't reach the heights they did without what was not good, but phenomenal support from their cordons. Even that South African team doesn't reach the level of dominance either. Waugh, Taylor, Ponting etc, Lloyd, Richards, Richardson, Kallis, Smith, deVilliers, were invaluable to their bowlers. I know we love to say that in close matches we need to have all the batting we can get, but what's more costly than dropping the other team's best batsman to see him go on to either cost runs or time. Dropped catches sinks morale, blinders does the exact opposite, we've all seen it. And as they say, catches win matches. Even Ambrose, Murali, Hadlee benefitted from superb catching behind them, and their numbers and careers aren't quite the same without Mahela, Hooper, Richardson etc. And to say you don't know who else would have caught them, I can equally say who's to say the best guys wouldn't have scored the 25 no to save the match? The fact is that they did.
Yes, batting depth is beneficial, sometimes even crucial, though if it's crucial too often, similar as to how Sobers was needed so often, it's generally signs of bigger problems. Though we can all agree that it's a luxury to have. And yes I watch American sports a tad much, and my view of our lovely sport is formed as much by the analytics trend as it is from watching the sport as well. Value is quantified in ways that spreadsheets just don't capture. Back on point, yes batting depth is more than useful at times, and when you're 7 down after tea on day 5, it seems like there's nothing more important.
But there's also the instances that some of these averages are inflated by high scoring draws and dead match situations where the slopes are pristine for down hill skiing. Not a criticism by any means, but the numbers aren't always what they seem. Last football analogy promise, but when Dak played in the Cowboys loss last year, yeah his stats looked amazing, but it was mainly empty calories, the game was already lost. That's not to diminish the context of the lower order batsmen, just an attempt to place in context.

So basically, yeah... In an ideal situation you should have at least 1 person specialized in all 3 disciplines.

I know we stress one way over the other, but where exactly has it proven to elevate a team to "greatness". Ideally the late order guys are there to bail out of undesirable positions or to efficiently build on a lead. Similarly the 4th / 5th option can never be counted on to carry an attack, but can sometimes be the one to break a key partnership. The cordon is there to make sure the bowlers efforts don't go to waste, and the ability to take the half chances can too turn the course of matches.

My experiences are different to everyone's, but I've seen great teams operate and thrive without two of those, never seen them operate without one, hence my belief that it's at least in par with the others. Forget Sobers or Hammond, I'll take a Richie Richardson all day, every day, and if you you can find guys who do do all 3? Gold.
Hammond, Chappell, Hadlee, Wasim all these guys are just amazingly versatile and useful and I just find it inconsistent and lacking nuance that only one is normally factored in, deemed important or used to elevate a player.

Again, very different sports, a timed game when there is literal garbage time where the result won’t change no matter what.

 

[kyear2]

Again, very different sports, a timed game when there is literal garbage time where the result won’t change no matter what.

We could have come back

God that was depressing though.