Why is it viewed as more important

[kyear2]

Motivated reasoning leads people go believe evolution isn't real too. There are many more examples of a top order batsman taking his side home with the help of the lower order in low scoring matches in addition to tail wags changing the game.

Who ever said it hasn't. But who said they have to be all rounders, Ambrose and Walsh stayed with Lara. Shami and Bumrah are genuine tail enders.

Again, I've never said they aren't important, I've said just as important as the other skills mentioned.

Does Australia become the dominant team they were without Ponting, Taylor, Waugh? The west indies without Lloyd, Richardson? South Africa and Steyn with out Kallis and Smith, Hadlee without Coney? No. Many of those games were close encounters as well.

I'm not saying lower order batting isn't important, I'm saying the other guys are as well. Why is this so hard?

 

[reyrey]

A lot of times when the 5th bowler is on, the batsmen relax and tend to get out. This can be the pivotal partnership breaker that turns the match.

From the mental aspect of it, bowlers feel.more confident pitching up the ball when they know they have a solid cordon behind the batsmen. They can bowl more naturally rather than trying to bowl different lines to get alternative modes of dismissal.

Batsmen can gain confidence from taking wickets and can lead to them scoring more runs when it's their turn to bat.

Dropped catches are really demoralizing to a team, especially when the batsman goes on to a big score or even a hundred.

All of those are true.

Did anyone even watch that Sten wicket compilation the other day? Kallis was insane at 2nd, tell me none of those ridiculous takes didn't turn matches.

The inability to recognize how important slip catching is is staggering.

The failure to recognize the utility of a 5th bowler is a little baffling. By bowling and giving your guys time to recover is alone 90% of the job. Even if he goes wicketless. If your no. 8 goes out there an scores 12, it's served no purpose. The consistency of the utility is the utility. Everything beyond that is a bonus.

I'm not sure what my post had to do with a 5th bowler or slips, but if a team has really strong lower order batting then it also gives them a bit more luxury when choosing a wicket keeper.

A great keeper is probably just as important as a great slip cordon.

Also a strong lower order actually gives you more flexibility in playing a 5th bowling option too (Batting all rounder like Brian McMillan or Oram)

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not saying lower order batting isn't important, I'm saying the other guys are as well. Why is this so hard?

You're downplaying lower order bowling ARs while upgrading tailender batters.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2

If Imran Khan had played in the WI team of the 80s in place of Joel Garner or in the Australian team of the 2000s in place of Gillespie, would you still be arguing that Marshall/McGrath > Imran as cricketers? I highly doubt it somehow. We'd all be saying Imran was the best player on those teams and the primary reason for their greatness using the same "winner" argument imo. Hypothetically, if he was putting up virtually the same bowling numbers on the same team as Marshall/McGrath, plus solid batting? Everyone would be hailing him as a better cricketer than teammate Marshall/McGrath almost unanimously afaic.

The only reason he's not a better cricketer in your eyes is that he happened to have a different passport. And I'm not accusing you of nationalistic bias when I say that, rather saying that you give an inordinate amount of credit to Marshall/McGrath for their teams being great as though those teams wouldn't have been just as good if Imran/Hadlee had been in the team. I don't buy that they wouldn't have been. Imo those teams would have gone from "greatest team ever" to an almost incomprehensible level of greatness if they had the greatest bowling all rounder ever (whether it's Imran/Hadlee).

Want to say thank you for not accusing me of bias, because I don't care about any of that.

I think Marshall and McGrath are better cricketers because they were undoubtedly better bowlers. That's it.

The reason I don't rate bowling all-rounders as the alpha combination and as distinct and apart as you all do is because in my lifetime they haven't been a factor in any of the great teams I've watched or followed. WI, Aus, SA back to back all had the same template. Opener, no. 3 / 4, fast bowling great, amazing cordon. Not only has no BAR featured at the centre of a great team, none were included in the ones that existed either, and decent bats more that served that purpose with distinction.

And being champions didn't elevate Marshall and McGrath in my (and the forums) rankings, it just validates the positions as the cherry on top. Everyone here already agrees that they were the best 2 ever.

So again, ideally you would have the batting, the bowling and catching in the same team. Sobers fills both easily and Hadlee as well

 

[kyear2]

I mean, imagine 2000s Australia with the cheat code of Gilchrist at 7 and then you add Imran on top of that at number 8? It'd be an absolute nightmare trying to bowl that team out.

But they didn't need it. They literally won without it. Warne than more filled the role, and how many matches did they lose?

 

[kyear2]

You're just inventing stuff now

How, this entire argument on your side is that lower order batting is more important than the others because every run counts.

The batting all rounders would be irrelevant in ATG scenarios and catching doesn't matter at all.
That's literally the argument the entire thread and none of that is true.

 

[Socerer 01]

since late 70s and early 80s WI won tests with spinners barely playing a role against teams of that time we can conclude that spinners are not needed for any atg team ever

peak logic that

 

[subshakerz]

In @kyear2s fantasy ATG game, we would see Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, Warne rip through the opposition and reduce them to 90/5. Then completely against the flow of the game, they bring in Sobers or Kallis' into the attack against a similar ATG lineup under pressure. Inexplicably, instead of milking this bowler, they slip up and lose their wicket.

Then when the team has a chance to bat, their upper middle order struggles, and therefore Hadlee instantly gets out when coming at no.8. but between Marshall, Steyn and Warne they shore up the rest of the batting and chase the score to win.

 

[Socerer 01]

, and therefore Hadlee instantly gets out when coming at no.8. but between Marshall, Steyn and Warne they shore up the rest of the batting and chase the score to win.

needs Garner at 11 imo to shore up the batting and win

 

[subshakerz]

But they didn't need it. They literally won without it. Warne than more filled the role, and how many matches did they lose?

Yeah because they were facing substantially poorer opposition for whom even Gilly's presence was overkill.

How, this entire argument on your side is that lower order batting is more important than the others because every run counts.

No, the entire argument is that lower order AR batting is better than tailend batting (duh) and that it is more useful than 5th bowler bowling for ATG sides.

 

[kyear2]

Proper all rounders can do it more often!

So can proper catchers and your perspective is baseline decent is good enough.

 

[subshakerz]

So can proper catchers and your perspective is baseline decent is good enough.

Is Mark Waugh in your ATG side then?

As long as a slip fielder is safe, I prefer lower order runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Want to say thank you for not accusing me of bias, because I don't care about any of that.

I think Marshall and McGrath are better cricketers because they were undoubtedly better bowlers. That's it.

The reason I don't rate bowling all-rounders as the alpha combination and as distinct and apart as you all do is because in my lifetime they haven't been a factor in any of the great teams I've watched or followed. WI, Aus, SA back to back all had the same template. Opener, no. 3 / 4, fast bowling great, amazing cordon. Not only has no BAR featured at the centre of a great team, none were included in the ones that existed either, and decent bats more that served that purpose with distinction.

By that criteria, neither WI or Aus had batting all-rounders either.

And being champions didn't elevate Marshall and McGrath in my (and the forums) rankings, it just validates the positions as the cherry on top. Everyone here already agrees that they were the best 2 ever.

Would you rank Warne over Murali based on that? Oh wait let me guess, no.

We agree they are the two best based on merit not made up criteria. All ATGs are champions regardless of side.

So again, ideally you would have the batting, the bowling and catching in the same team. Sobers fills both easily and Hadlee as well

Dude why do another thread just to justify excluding Imran? Are you a glutton for punishment?

 

[Socerer 01]

So can proper catchers and your perspective is baseline decent is good enough.

how many atg xis does Ponting get into edging a better batsman out just because he was one of the greatest fielders of all time?

its a weird hill to die on frankly, this batsmen with excellent slip catching or fielding are all rounders. if there is a need to characterise a batsman with fielding skills as an all rounder i’d rather do that with wicket keepers

 

[Socerer 01]

Dude why do another thread just to justify excluding Imran? Are you a glutton for punishment?

i know you dont do it anymore but it feels ironical seeing you say this

 

[kyear2]

Dude this is stupefying. Marshall and Warne are not going to bail out as regularly as Imran and Hadlee, anymore than Hadlee and Imran are going to build huge innings as much as Tendulkar and Lara.

You are outright contradicting yourself when you say 'well I can't see Imran/Hadlee really doing anything if the entire ATG middle order has failed' and then saying 'yeah Marshall/Warne have proven to be so helpful bailing out time and again as tailenders'.

Here is what you said before about ATG contests.



So in a low scoring game where ATG pacers are all over great bats, is a fifth bowler more important or handy runs down the order?

Stop speaking in pretzels.

None of them are, at this level none of them are flourishing with the bat, hence pick the best ****ing bowlers. I thought that was clear.

Picking the best bowlers to bowl out the opposition, taking you catches and relying on the batsmen to do their job. As I've repeatedly said I no more expect a fifth bowler to bowl out a team than I would the 8th batsman to score runs.

This is your argument. Let's pick a team, I want all the best batsmen because 5th bowling isn't important, hey neither is taking the catches that the bowlers provide. Let's just go with the best batsmen.
I also have 8 bowlers to chose from, but let's reverse my earlier criteria and let's not pick the best bowlers, let's pick the best batsmen out if the bowlers instead because lower order runs might be more important than bowling out the ****ing opposition. Plus, not like we're going to take the catches anyway. So let's chose the 3rd and the 8th best bowler available.

take the names away and it doesn't make **** sense.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not sure what my post had to do with a 5th bowler or slips, but if a team has really strong lower order batting then it also gives them a bit more luxury when choosing a wicket keeper.

A great keeper is probably just as important as a great slip cordon.

Also a strong lower order actually gives you more flexibility in playing a 5th bowling option too (Batting all rounder like Brian McMillan or Oram)

I was using that to show you your arguments can work both ways. Guess you missed that.

And yes, a strong keeper is a given.

 

[kyear2]

You're downplaying lower order bowling ARs while upgrading tailender batters.

And what are you doing?

 

[kyear2]

since late 70s and early 80s WI won tests with spinners barely playing a role against teams of that time we can conclude that spinners are not needed for any atg team ever

peak logic that

1. I named the features that all three teams have in common.

2. If you have a fast bowling lineup of Holding, Garner, Croft and Roberts, no you don't need a spinner. Will there ever be a collection like that again? No, so balance in that instance is preferred.

So I said, every great team I've watched the past 40 years have had a very good opener, a great no. 3 or no. 4, a great fast bowler and a great cordon. That's the core, without any of those the team wouldn't have been as successful.

There's no rational argument against that, so let's create a strawman to derail that. The South African side didn't have a great spinner either. It isn't up there, it's a plus but not a requirement and can be worked around. How do you work around dropping balls that would be wickets?

 

[kyear2]

In @kyear2s fantasy ATG game, we would see Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, Warne rip through the opposition and reduce them to 90/5. Then completely against the flow of the game, they bring in Sobers or Kallis' into the attack against a similar ATG lineup under pressure. Inexplicably, instead of milking this bowler, they slip up and lose their wicket.

Then when the team has a chance to bat, their upper middle order struggles, and therefore Hadlee instantly gets out when coming at no.8. but between Marshall, Steyn and Warne they shore up the rest of the batting and chase the score to win.

Wow, that's more idiotic and disingenuous that the last misrepresentation.