Can a batting or bowling lineup without a worldclass/great level player be considered strong?

[subshakerz]

Are we biased towards the presence of ATG type players in assessing whether lineups can be strong or not?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Are we biased towards the presence of ATG type players in assessing whether lineups can be strong or not?

I believe so. We are a bit too obsessed over a bowler's entire career than to look at present form. For example; Pakistan had an attack of Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir when India toured in 89. But that was an extremely high scoring series, and Waqar actually was the best bowler, while being a debutant. On the other hand, you have the Ashes winning English line-up of Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmisson, Jones and Giles; and none of them are close to World Class (except Hoggard ofcourse); but they still were excellent.

 

[shortpitched713]

"Worldclass" is a strange term which I doubt can be precisely defined.

Obviously a lineup can be very effective without any ATGs. ATGs by definition, are of course very rare.

 

[Slifer]

I assume you're talking about bowling attacks and I'm struggling to think of a strong attack that didn't have a great bowler. Someone mentioned the English attack but that was for what one series. They struggled in the return series a year later in Australia. I don't remember much about them but were they really that strong an attack?

Actually, NZ recently had a pretty strong attack imo and they didn't particularly have a great bowler. So there's that.

 

[Coronis]

I assume you're talking about bowling attacks and I'm struggling to think of a strong attack that didn't have a great bowler. Someone mentioned the English attack but that was for what one series. They struggled in the return series a year later in Australia. I don't remember much about them but were they really that strong an attack?

Actually, NZ recently had a pretty strong attack imo and they didn't particularly have a great bowler. So there's that.

Yeah NZ was my first thought.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Someone mentioned the English attack but that was for what one series. They struggled in the return series a year later in Australia. I don't remember much about them but were they really that strong an attack?

They were very strong but it didn't last long. Definitely more than one series though. They had very successful tours of SA and India in that period, it wasn't just the 05 Ashes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I assume you're talking about bowling attacks and I'm struggling to think of a strong attack that didn't have a great bowler. Someone mentioned the English attack but that was for what one series. They struggled in the return series a year later in Australia. I don't remember much about them but were they really that strong an attack?

Actually, NZ recently had a pretty strong attack imo and they didn't particularly have a great bowler. So there's that.

They had a great albeit short period around 2005 when they were World Class. I specifically didn't used the NZ attack as even without an ATG they had 3 bowlers who could very well be considered ATVG and one who could end up and ATG in future. None of the English bowlers individually are anything close to any of them imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They had a great albeit short period around 2005 when they were World Class.

Hmmm a mystery hmmmmmmm

 

[reyrey]

They were very strong but it didn't last long. Definitely more than one series though. They had very successful tours of SA and India in that period, it wasn't just the 05 Ashes.

They were good in WIs too.

It played out something like this. Harmison was world class for like 12/18 months around 2004, Flintoff was world class for like 18/24 months around 2004/06. Hoggard was also very consistent during that period and later, Giles had his best ever year in 2004, Jones was excellent in 2005 and Panesar was very good in 2006.

So between 2004 and 2006 (up to Ashes test in Oz) they were a very strong bowling outfit with at least 3 and sometimes 4 guys firing at the same time and at least one of the 90mph+ fast man bowling like a worldie.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hmmm a mystery hmmmmmmm

A minty mystery

 

[Sunil1z]

Only guy who was able to stop England between 2004 to 2006 Ashes . Reminded me of Bumrah series vs England 2 months ago

 

[Flem274*]

I assume you're talking about bowling attacks and I'm struggling to think of a strong attack that didn't have a great bowler. Someone mentioned the English attack but that was for what one series. They struggled in the return series a year later in Australia. I don't remember much about them but were they really that strong an attack?

Actually, NZ recently had a pretty strong attack imo and they didn't particularly have a great bowler. So there's that.

It's tricky since they had probable ATVGs in Wagner and Boult and KJ was bowling to an ATG level during the 18 month WTC charge which really turned that team, briefly, into #1 (along with Conway's intro).

KJ's performances against India obv get the most attention, but he dominated everyone he played through that phase. There was one of the best overs ever bowled by an NZer wasted on Roston Chase and one of the most vicious balls I've ever seen to Fawad Alam. Kohli caught behind bowled Jamieson will always be iconic to me tho.

 

[Migara]

Are we biased towards the presence of ATG type players in assessing whether lineups can be strong or not?

Yes it can. SL '96 WC team was an example. Aravinda and Arjuna were close to ATG, but was not there. Vaas and Murali was just starting their careers. Jayasuriya was yet to be the batsman he was. Gurusinha, Mahanama and Tillekaratne all averaged sub 30. Yet for 18-24 month period from 1996 March, we demolished every one. At least 9 - 10 of the players in that team had hit form.

Form batsman > Great batsman.

 

[Slifer]

Yes it can. SL '96 WC team was an example. Aravinda and Arjuna were close to ATG, but was not there. Vaas and Murali was just starting their careers. Jayasuriya was yet to be the batsman he was. Gurusinha, Mahanama and Tillekaratne all averaged sub 30. Yet for 18-24 month period from 1996 March, we demolished every one. At least 9 - 10 of the players in that team had hit form.

Form batsman > Great batsman.

I'm thinking this thread is speaking more specifically about tests but I could be wrong....

 

[Slifer]

Are we biased towards the presence of ATG type players in assessing whether lineups can be strong or not?

Strong batting/bowling from my lifetime:

Batting:

WI: 80s especially with Lloyd.
Australia: from 1996ish to now
India: Dravid/Sachin/Laxman/Ganguly etc
Eng: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Kevin, Collingwood
SL: Sanga, Mahela, Jayasuriya, etc
RSA: Smith, Kallis, AB, Amla

There are more examples but only England really doesn't really have an atg but Kevin and Cook were close enough maybe there in some people's minds.

 

[reyrey]

Australia have had some weak batting line ups in the last dozen years.

 

[Nintendo]

Australia have had some weak batting line ups in the last dozen years.

Those line-ups also had peak Smith most of the time TBF. When he was banned I don't think many people where claiming the line-up with the marsh brothers batting 3 and 4 was very strong.

Its funny looking back on that Pakistan series now. Given where we are now a batting line-up with marnus, head, Mitch marsh and khawaja looks way better than it actually was.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Australia have had some weak batting line ups in the last dozen years.

Weak compared to their own high standards, compared to others strong enough ..

Travis Head a big match player, Usman Khawaja was great in his opening position, David Warner a great at home, Chris Rogers a solid opening bat , Labuschagne started test cricket with a great purple patch etc..and of course the run machine Steve Smith

 

[ankitj]

This forum needs a break from hypothetical questions.

 

[SteveNZ]

This forum needs a break from hypothetical questions.

What would happen if we did have a break?