Why is it viewed as more important

[kyear2]

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.

This is the thing I don't get. How is no.8 in a batting line up of Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Gilchrist etc. be more valuable than a 5th bowler who will have to bowl to assist with rotations and on a faster pitch can be your 4th seamer or on a spinning pitch either be your 3rd seamer and allow you to bowl 2 spinners or be the 2nd spinner. That is unfathomable flexibility offered by the only cricketer who ever could.

That doesn't include the fact that he's the 1st slip to your leg spinner, and 2nd slip to Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee, 4 bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket.

In either of those two roles he brings more value than a no. 8 in that batting line up vs high quality bowling.

This isn't hard.

 

[smash84]

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.

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.

@kyear2 , these are some really good answers to your question. Think about them

 

[smash84]

This isn't hard.

It is hard, if you consider that they will be playing a comparable team. Not up against national sides.

Have you seen how crucial tail runs are in so many matches where the top order fails?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is the thing I don't get. How is no.8 in a batting line up of Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Gilchrist etc. be more valuable than a 5th bowler who will have to bowl to assist with rotations and on a faster pitch can be your 4th seamer or on a spinning pitch either be your 3rd seamer and allow you to bowl 2 spinners or be the 2nd spinner. That is unfathomable flexibility offered by the only cricketer who ever could.

That doesn't include the fact that he's the 1st slip to your leg spinner, and 2nd slip to Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee, 4 bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket.

In either of those two roles he brings more value than a no. 8 in that batting line up vs high quality bowling.

This isn't hard.

Are we talking about general middle range test sides, or an all-time World XI to play Mars or the AI Bot XI?

 

[ataraxia]

The funny thing is that even genuine 5th bowlers, despite balancing team composition very well, only provide a small advantage to teams: them bowling is normally a move that is slightly better than overworking a top 4 bowler or relying on a part-timer. It's only in rare instances that batting all-rounders genuinely get on a roll with the ball. They're by-and-large holding bowlers.

Slips hardly merit consideration compared to the other two, and this is coming from a poster who values them more than most do. A good 2nd-slip-to-pacers and 1st-slip-to-spinners might catch 90% of the ~2.2 chances that come to them a game, while an average one might only catch 65%, say. With the average batting average of 30, that comes out at saving about 17 runs a game. Peanuts. The savings are less still for other catchers.

The thing about bowling all-rounders is that to be considered as much you have to be much better than the mean tail-ender: the replacement is a lot worse. As with keepers, that reality might slowly change -- it's easier to improve bowlers' batting than batters' batting -- but in the times of the great bowling all-rounders they were so much better than their replacement with both bat and ball it's not even funny (I kid, it is).

 

[centurymaker]

It is hard, if you consider that they will be playing a comparable team. Not up against national sides.

Have you seen how crucial tail runs are in so many matches where the top order fails?

Totally agree, and top order doesn't have to fail either. Those runs lower down make all the difference so often. You'd have to be naive to disregard it.

Lower order runs are part of the reason India has been winning at home. If Ashwin, Jadeja were crap batters, India wouldn't have won a handful of series in the last 10 yrs.

Mitchell Johnson vs India...
Sam Curran vs India...
Marco Jansen vs India..

Likewise, the runs coming from other bowling allrounders at 7 & 8 have so many times cost India the series away from home..

 

[Starfighter]

Having read this whole thread, the one question that keeps puzzling me is: what's a

heater affinity

?

 

[centurymaker]

The funny thing is that even genuine 5th bowlers, despite balancing team composition very well, only provide a small advantage to teams: them bowling is normally a move that is slightly better than overworking a top 4 bowler or relying on a part-timer. It's only in rare instances that batting all-rounders genuinely get on a roll with the ball. They're by-and-large holding bowlers.

Slips hardly merit consideration compared to the other two, and this is coming from a poster who values them more than most do. A good 2nd-slip-to-pacers and 1st-slip-to-spinners might catch 90% of the ~2.2 chances that come to them a game, while an average one might only catch 65%, say. With the average batting average of 30, that comes out at saving about 17 runs a game. Peanuts. The savings are less still for other catchers.

The thing about bowling all-rounders is that to be considered as much you have to be much better than the mean tail-ender: the replacement is a lot worse. As with keepers, that reality might slowly change -- it's easier to improve bowlers' batting than batters' batting -- but in the times of the great bowling all-rounders they were so much better than their replacement with both bat and ball it's not even funny (I kid, it is).

Yeah I don't see a lot of utility in batting allrounders, except that they provide a bit of rest to your main bowlers. But you'd rather have 4 or 5 proper bowlers than relying on batting allrounders taking too many wickets. Their wickets are going to cost you much more runs than frontline bowlers.

And I doubt how effective they would be against the best sides.

Bowling allrounders however who can properly bat and have a batting avg of 30+ are much more valuable than a Batting allrounder with a bowl avg of 33-35.

Thats because a bowling allrounder's lower order contribution and 'partnerships' are much more decisive. These partnerships allow more runs to be accumulated. They can initially pair up with a set batter to take the score higher and/or with tailend batters to maximise the total.

Typical scenario.
200/6 -> 250/10
vs
200/6 -> 300/10

Sometimes it's a lot more like 350/10.

Meanwhile you might not even need your batting allrounder to take wickets ..or if they do take wickets they are probably conceding more runs anyway.

 

[centurymaker]

If we are playing on a pitch with assistance for bowlers you definitely don't need 5 bowlers. 4 ATG bowlers is more than sufficient almost everytime.

Whereas if we are playing on a really flat deck, then I don't see how a batting allrounder with a bowling avg of 34 as your "5th bowler" is going to be of much help ....when 4 ATG bowlers who are averaging 20-24 are not able to take certain wickets.

So 4 ATG bowlers are sufficient in most scenarios but if they are not in certain scenarios, then you probably need a 5th 'ATG' bowler someone who is a bit different to work some magic on a road. You can't then rely on much lower quality bowlers (batting all rounders) especially against ATG or even quality batsmen.

So in terms of utility-

Imran, Hadlee > Sobers, Kallis

 

[centurymaker]

Ofcourse if we are just taking about usual national sides and playing against other national sides, then both bowling and batting all rounders are probably more or less equally useful.

 

[kyear2]

It is hard, if you consider that they will be playing a comparable team. Not up against national sides.

Have you seen how crucial tail runs are in so many matches where the top order fails?

Yes I have. That's the thing though, I've never said there isn't value.

What I said that with this team's batting line up, it reduces the chances that the strong tail would be needed, and even more crucially, I don't think any attack capable of blowing away this one would be held up long by the tail.

In every match ever you also need bowling support for the main guys, so to go back to Subs post that one is vital and the other is no more than a 5th bowler was just off.

And as I've often said, and you keep the receipts, Sober's main secondary role in such a team would be in the cordon. I can ask you, have you seen how critical Taylor, Waugh and Ponting were to McGrath's and Australia's success. How vital Kallis and Smith were to Steyn's? How Marshall and co thrived with Lloyd and Richardson? I can go on, it's easily just as critical and consistently ignored. It's also a skill that isn't scaled to the opposition like the other 2. Like Imran isn't scoring hundreds the same way Sobers isn't getting 5fers, he is catching the same way though.

 

[Xix2565]

I think in terms of skills to value, bowling >>> batting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> catching. Need good bowlers to create loads of chances and thus more wickets in order to win Tests. Then the rest follows from that. So a bowling AR is more valuable because you can have more of the most important skill in Tests, without the general negatives in batting that the average Test bowler presents.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the thing I don't get. How is no.8 in a batting line up of Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Gilchrist etc. be more valuable than a 5th bowler who will have to bowl to assist with rotations and on a faster pitch can be your 4th seamer or on a spinning pitch either be your 3rd seamer and allow you to bowl 2 spinners or be the 2nd spinner. That is unfathomable flexibility offered by the only cricketer who ever could.

Three points:

- It doesn't have to be an ATG XI. We can talk about the value given to an average cricket side too. Using an ATG XI actually to judge cricket value obscures things somewhat.

- Even for an ATG XI, every aspect from the tail to the opener is amped up. Therefore, you need a no.8 that is unusually better than your average no.8, meaning Imran or Hadlee level

-.We have already established that four worldclass bowlers will be an unprecedented challenge for an opposing team of an ATG XI, therefore the presence or quality of the 5th bowling option matters even less. He may likely not be used in most cases whereas a no.8 will bat every time as it will be mostly low.scoring affairs.

That doesn't include the fact that he's the 1st slip to your leg spinner, and 2nd slip to Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee, 4 bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket.

In either of those two roles he brings more value than a no. 8 in that batting line up vs high quality bowling.

This isn't hard.

There is no rule that a batting AR has to be a high quality slip fielder in general. That is just the case in Sobers and Kallis.

If we are talking about the general rule, even the no.8 can be a good slip fielder. But if you are saying better slip catching is worth more than actual runs, have to disagree. Luckily we have both Sobers and Imran in my ATG XI so don't have to choose.

 

[subshakerz]

What I said that with this team's batting line up, it reduces the chances that the strong tail would be needed, and even more crucially, I don't think any attack capable of blowing away this one would be held up long by the tail.

In every match ever you also need bowling support for the main guys, so to go back to Subs post that one is vital and the other is no more than a 5th bowler was just off.

This is your fundamental wrong point.

In an ATG XI, runs are a premium because we are facing opposing lineups full of worldclass bowlers. Average team scores may be between 180 to 250.

Your average ATG bat may experience a 10 run cut in averages. Imran even giving 25 runs an inning would be gold. Imran being able to last longer in a partnership with such a bat can mean all the difference.

Whereas practically unless it's an dead pitch, when do you see Sobers/Kallis as a bowler making the difference once a lineup is trying to survive against Marshall, McGrath, Steyn/Murali and Warne? 90 percent of the time your four bowlers are simply enough to run through any lineup of opposing ATGs. Sobers/Kallis may be bowling once every two or three tests.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Missed this the first time around and quite frankly the best argument.

The primary argument wasn't including the primary skills, but why are the secondary skills of the B/A given such priority over the rest.

Yes bowling is more valuable than batting, not immensely so, but noticably so as they impact the results of more matches. My argument has been how much value has than secondary skills added to winning teams of the past. Marshall and McGrath manged to more through without one, through Warne and Marshall comes kinda close to that designation.
In test cricket you need a decent 5th bowler even if his role is not to get carted around, he doesn't nearly have to be an all rounder, just serviceable, wickets are a bonus. When you have a great bowling attack, or even just a decent one, you need a great cordon to make the most of the chances, I've seen to too many matches lost by spilled chances and equally seen ones won by taking the half chances. You need a tail that isn't tissue paper, but you don't need a bowling AR, the 3 best teams of my time watching the sport didn't have one and they managed without. None of them would have manged to reach the heights they did without the catching support they received.

As myself and @Fuller Pilch pitch said in another thread and I believe @Line and Length somewhat agreed to, may have to verify which post to be sure, Hadlee was the better cricketer of the two all-rounders and I think the one more comparable to Sobers. He was the better bowler (primary job), and damn good enough bat. Where Imran will always make the argument is the reverse card (pun intended?), and hence offering something different.

These have been too long, so trying to keep it short, so to bring it home.... I agree that at the end of the day bowling is more impactful, and that's the way they are graded, by the bowling first, and if it's sufficiently behind, then the batting isn't enough to leap frog for me, and that's probably just me. If we're directly referring to Sobers and Kallis, they also have the catching support to add to their repertoire, and they were both superlative in that role as well, closing the gap IMHO, if there is one.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 , these are some really good answers to your question. Think about them

The first one yes, and I just responded to it.

 

[ataraxia]

In test cricket you need a decent 5th bowler even if his role is not to get carted around, he doesn't nearly have to be an all rounder, just serviceable, wickets are a bonus. When you have a great bowling attack, or even just a decent one, you need a great cordon to make the most of the chances, I've seen to too many matches lost by spilled chances and equally seen ones won by taking the half chances. You need a tail that isn't tissue paper, but you don't need a bowling AR, the 3 best teams of my time watching the sport didn't have one and they managed without. None of them would have manged to reach the heights they did without the catching support they received.

This is such a weird argument because, for one, one can logically point out that bowling all-rounders not only fulfill the need of a non-tissuepaper tail but go above and beyond that need. And you seem to be saying that going above and beyond is unnecessary, ergo worse?

 

[kyear2]

If we are playing on a pitch with assistance for bowlers you definitely don't need 5 bowlers. 4 ATG bowlers is more than sufficient almost everytime.

Whereas if we are playing on a really flat deck, then I don't see how a batting allrounder with a bowling avg of 34 as your "5th bowler" is going to be of much help ....when 4 ATG bowlers who are averaging 20-24 are not able to take certain wickets.

So 4 ATG bowlers are sufficient in most scenarios but if they are not in certain scenarios, then you probably need a 5th 'ATG' bowler someone who is a bit different to work some magic on a road. You can't then rely on much lower quality bowlers (batting all rounders) especially against ATG or even quality batsmen.

So in terms of utility-

Imran, Hadlee > Sobers, Kallis

If you're playing on flat pitches you definitely don't need 8 batsmen, 6 ATG batsmen plus Gilchrist is surely enough every time.

Where as if you're playing on a really spicy deck, I don't see how a bowling all rounder with an average of 30 who's your no. 8 batsman is going to be of much help.... When 6 ATG batsmen averaging over 50 and one averaging 100 are not able to score.

So 6 ATG batsmen, plus Gilchrist are sufficient in most scenarios, and if they aren't you can't rely on much lower quality batsmen (bowling all rounders) against ATG or even quality bowlers. Probably best to just play your best 4 bowlers And try to bowl out the other team for less, and probably get some quality slip catchers in there to take those changes. But wait, the quality catchers are also the back up bowlers?

So on terms of utility

Sobers, Kallis & even Hammond are > Hadlee, Imran.

Well Hadlee will still be valuable as he's still among your best bowlers.

Thanks for proving my point, they're both depreciating assets, unlike the guys that catch the edges. But the role of a Sobers can at least keep the opposition quiet while the other guys rest. Damn, that utility is useful after all.

 

[kyear2]

Three points:

- It doesn't have to be an ATG XI. We can talk about the value given to an average cricket side too. Using an ATG XI actually to judge cricket value obscures things somewhat.

- Even for an ATG XI, every aspect from the tail to the opener is amped up. Therefore, you need a no.8 that is unusually better than your average no.8, meaning Imran or Hadlee level

-.We have already established that four worldclass bowlers will be an unprecedented challenge for an opposing team of an ATG XI, therefore the presence or quality of the 5th bowling option matters even less. He may likely not be used in most cases whereas a no.8 will bat every time as it will be mostly low.scoring affairs.


There is no rule that a batting AR has to be a high quality slip fielder in general. That is just the case in Sobers and Kallis.

If we are talking about the general rule, even the no.8 can be a good slip fielder. But if you are saying better slip catching is worth more than actual runs, have to disagree. Luckily we have both Sobers and Imran in my ATG XI so don't have to choose.

That's the thing though, you have to sacrifice bowling strength to include Imran (something not necessary with Hadlee, while still getting the bat), you don't have to do that with Sobers.

 

[reyrey]

Just some random reason. Some more meaningful than others.

A lot of the times when the tail is in opposition bowlers are tired and the ball is old. It's often the best batting conditions. Having late order batting to take advantage of this can turn a good score into a great score, a bad one into a par score etc.

Also the mental aspect of it. Top order feel less pressure knowing there is a lot of batting depth and batsmen who find themselves with the tail can play more naturally and not to worry as much about protecting them.

Bowlers who can bat seem to often gain confidence from scoring runs which can translate to bowling better (Mitchell Johnson is a prime example, always seemed to bowl game changing/match winning spells after getting some runs)

Late order runs are also highly demoralizing for the opposition