Why is it viewed as more important

[subshakerz]

And what are you doing?

Telling it like it is. Tailenders' are useful, lower order ARs are more than useful, and in lower scoring games, their runs become precious.

 

[kyear2]

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


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.


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

See this is where your singleminded zeal has taken you.

The purpose of the thread was to say that they are all important. Not that one wasn't, but all you saw was "Imran"

And there's no punishment, all you're doing is showing your insecurities and petty ass behavior.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

How did you come to this conclusion? Imran can still average 20 odd in such scenarios and still be very useful in a low scoring scenario which you agree it is.

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.

Then don't have batting ARs at all. Got it.

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.

No, I want a bowling AR and a batting AR both as long as their primary skills are ATG level. Best balance in a side that covers all bases. But in an ATG XI, the bowling AR is more.imoortant as runs in general are more important.

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.

Yeah if the 8th best bowler by your reckoning comes as an extra bat, sure I will consider that. Because the differences between these ATG pacers in minimal to begin with. You're obsessed with these rankings.

 

[subshakerz]

See this is where your singleminded zeal has taken you.

The purpose of the thread was to say that they are all important. Not that one wasn't, but all you saw was "Imran"

And there's no punishment, all you're doing is showing your insecurities and petty ass behavior.

Dude come off it. We all know why you created this thread and why you created the Best Attack thread.

You resorting to namecalling is the definition of insecure.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

Wtf? You lose bowling strength with Sobers not Imran. Batting is what Sobers has over Imran, unless you believe only 4 bowlers are allowed in ATG XIs and the 5th option cannot be good.

 

[kyear2]

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

And again you've made my point for me, none. The same way Imran doesn't make mine, it's consistency.

I'm not going to weaken a specialist position for a secondary skills. Gavaskar over Hutton, or Hadlee over McGrath because they're basically equal and it's a tie breaker for the one that can bring multiple skills to the table.

And to be clear, and listen closely. The purpose of the thread was two fold.

1. Why is only one secondary skill given preference when choosing these teams. History has shown that slip catching is just as, if not more important than having a specialist bowling all rounder on a team. Treat them the same.

2. Why is it that bowling all rounders are elevated for their secondary skills, but when rankings are taking place no one uses the secondary skills to elevate the Ponting's, Chappell's, Hammond's, Kallis's etc.

It wasn't about saying it shouldn't be used for Imran, it is that it should be used for all of them.

For the first point, I'm not saying include Ponting, Kallis or even Hammond, though Hammond has a legitimate argument based on all 3 skills and his batting is just as high and Imran's bowling. I'm saying there's an inconsistency in though that's only applied to one of three disciples.

This isn't about Sobers, he's one of the 6 automatics to any ATG team, wasn't about Imran either. I'm saying be consistent, the catchers win matches as well, well actually even more.

 

[subshakerz]

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

Except SA have had lower order bats like Klusener, Philander, etc.

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.

Yes in ATG XIs you can have a collection like that.

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.

You are flipping between ATG XIs and actual sides who played. Stick with one criteria and stop flipflopping.

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?

Consider us wanting a bowling AR in an ATG XI the same as a preference for a spinner.

 

[subshakerz]

1. Why is only one secondary skill given preference when choosing these teams. History has shown that slip catching is just as, if not more important than having a specialist bowling all rounder on a team. Treat them the same.

Because fielding is less important than taking wickets and scoring runs. Its a tertiary skill.

2. Why is it that bowling all rounders are elevated for their secondary skills, but when rankings are taking place no one uses the secondary skills to elevate the Ponting's, Chappell's, Hammond's, Kallis's etc.

Because their secondary skills aren't good enough.

 

[Socerer 01]

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?

you conveniently ignored the next best team of their time chronologically because they had a bowling all rounder in their best xi and that wouldnt have fit in with your narrative

we’ve done this dance already and no, you cant win everywhere against all teams with just pacers no matter how much you believe that, your pace bias is leaking

bro you’re the one creating strawmans and claiming that you’re willing to listen to alternatives yet shooting them down. the Pakistani duo worked up an atg worthy record despite their fielders having hot potato hands

 

[Xix2565]

The two most important skills in Test cricket are bowling and batting in that order. Catching is nowhere near on the level of batting, let alone bowling.

 

[Socerer 01]

1. Why is only one secondary skill given preference when choosing these teams. History has shown that slip catching is just as, if not more important than having a specialist bowling all rounder on a team.

where?????

 

[OverratedSanity]

1980s WI and 2000s Aus would objectively be even better than they were if they had a great bowling AR in the team. Using the fact that they didn't have a good enough bowling all rounder for the role as proof that great teams don't need one is utterly non sensical.

If they had the chance to select Imran/Hadlee, they would 100% have done it.

 

[Xix2565]

1980s Australia and 2000s WI would objectively be even better than they were if they had a great bowling AR in the team. Using the fact that they didn't have a good enough bowling all rounder for the role as proof that great teams don't need one is utterly non sensical.

If they had the chance to select Imran/Hadlee, they would 100% have done it.

Mixed up the teams there.

 

[StephenZA]

The two most important skills in Test cricket are bowling and batting in that order. Catching is nowhere near on the level of batting, let alone bowling.

Dammit and here I thought wk was an important position. My school team lied to me!!

 

[OverratedSanity]

Mixed up the teams there.

Bhavnaon ko samjho

 

[Xix2565]

Tbf, both 80s Aus and 00s WI would've loved Imran/Hadlee as well.

 

[Xix2565]

Dammit and here I thought wk was an important position. My school team lied to me!!

The fact that Gilchrist reigns supreme as the #1 wk should show you the value of batting vs specialist wk.

 

[StephenZA]

The fact that Gilchrist reigns supreme as the #1 wk should show you the value of batting vs specialist wk.

I know. He sucked at catching anything. I can't believe I didn't see it before.

 

[subshakerz]

1980s WI and 2000s Aus would objectively be even better than they were if they had a great bowling AR in the team. Using the fact that they didn't have a good enough bowling all rounder for the role as proof that great teams don't need one is utterly non sensical.

If they had the chance to select Imran/Hadlee, they would 100% have done it.

He is contradicting himself by vacillating between WI/Aus and fantasy ATG XIs.

 

[Xix2565]

I know. He sucked at catching anything. I can't believe I didn't see it before.

Tbh, not quite what I meant here. Though if it means this becomes a meme, then I'm fine with that implication.