Pace Quartet or Spinner

[subshakerz]

If you were building one attack for all conditions and had four worldclass pace bowlers, would you remove one to make place for a spinner of Lyon/Swann class?

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you were building one attack for all conditions and had four worldclass pace bowlers, would you remove one to make place for a spinner of Lyon/Swann class?

If those 4 are Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Imran; then probably not, if are WI quartet level, then yes.

 

[Nintendo]

Depends on if I have a solid all-rounder or not and how good my backup pacers are. If you have a 3+ test series on shorter turnaround I don't know if a 4 pace attack with no spinner or 5th option is going to hold up.

 

[subshakerz]

If those 4 are Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Imran; then probably not, if are WI quartet level, then yes.

Practically, wouldn't Marshall, McGrath or Steyn/Imran be enough pace options?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Practically, wouldn't Marshall, McGrath or Steyn/Imran be enough pace options?

It would be, but can you bring yourself to bench Steyn for Swann?

 

[Burgey]

There'd be a Royal Commission if you benched any of those quicks for a spinner the quality of those in the OP.

 

[subshakerz]

There'd be a Royal Commission if you benched any of those quicks for a spinner the quality of those in the OP.

Maybe could be justified if it's to do pace rotation and rest them.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but then it's sort of not to do with their quality as bowlers. I sort of assume they're all at full fitness and available.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If you were building one attack for all conditions and had four worldclass pace bowlers, would you remove one to make place for a spinner of Lyon/Swann class?

Well Australia do so and it works for them.

 

[subshakerz]

Well Australia do so and it works for them.

Who are they benching of that quality though?

 

[h_hurricane]

Personally, I wouldn't bench Garner or Holding for Gibbs. And that is without even talking about Big Bird's batting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not really a practical question. There's no scenario where you're going to be forced to pick one or the other for all conditions. Just leave one out for a spinner if it's going to be a dogtrack of a turner otherwise play the 4 quicks

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Who are they benching of that quality though?

Pattinson - obviously injured a lot but was potentially a great
Boland - worldclass in the right conditions
Neser - never given a chance
Jye Richardson - wrecked by injury but a worldclass talent

Australia could often have played 4 quicks by adding 1 of the above to their regular pace triumvirate, dropping Lyon, and getting part-time spin out of the likes of Smith, Labuschagne, and Head but saw the important balance that Lyon gives their side.

 

[kyear2]

If those 4 are Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Imran; then probably not, if are WI quartet level, then yes.

I assume you're referring to, or could only be referring to Roberts, who incidentally was the leader of the pack. And according to some like Sunny, the best of the lot. So not dropping him for Lyon or Swann in most conditions.

Garner and Holding were borderline if not ATG (and right there with Lillee and Imran from the era in terms of quality) and the only reason Croft wasn't rated is longevity.

 

[subshakerz]

I assume you're referring to, or could only be referring to Roberts, who incidentally was the leader of the pack. And according to some like Sunny, the best of the lot. So not dropping him for Lyon or Swann in most conditions.

Garner and Holding were borderline if not ATG (and right there with Lillee and Imran from the era in terms of quality) and the only reason Croft wasn't rated is longevity.

I guess the question is your team more assured of success for that 4th bowler position of a good spinner or a great pacer.

I honestly see Lloyd playing Lyon or Swann pretty regularly if you have Croft/Garner/Holding etc. up front.

Again we are assuming against regular teams. 4 pacers of that quality is simply overkill in any condition that isn't spin or batting friendly.

 

[kyear2]

I guess the question is your team more assured of success for that 4th bowler position of a good spinner or a great pacer.

I honestly see Lloyd playing Lyon or Swann pretty regularly if you have Croft/Garner/Holding etc. up front.

Again we are assuming against regular teams. 4 pacers of that quality is simply overkill in any condition that isn't spin or batting friendly.

There are scenarios where Harper played, and one famous one when he should have, that's not in question. For "most" conditions however, what made the team terrifying to face was the unrelenting pace and aggression.

It's different from let's say Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee where each bowler is doing something different and testing your technique in different ways. They tested your technique, commitment and courage.

Yes some think they went over board and it did precipitate rule changes (which I will never not find hilarious considering it was a consistent part of the even pre war) which was more than a tad hypocritical, but I digress and it was effective.

 

[subshakerz]

There are scenarios where Harper played, and one famous one when he should have, that's not in question. For "most" conditions however, what made the team terrifying to face was the unrelenting pace and aggression.

It's different from let's say Marshall, McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee where each bowler is doing something different and testing your technique in different ways. They tested your technique, commitment and courage.

Yes some think they went over board and it did precipitate rule changes (which I will never not find hilarious considering it was a consistent part of the even pre war) which was more than a tad hypocritical, but I digress and it was effective.

I understand.

However Harper is nowhere as good as Lyon or Swann who are matchwinners at least once most series when conditions suit.

If you have Hadlee, Marshall, Steyn, McGrath facing your average teams, honestly don't see much a fourth seamer will do that the three other seamers can't accomplish among themselves pacewise.

Whereas I definitely see Swann and Lyon being useful outside of three ATG pacers in limited but common scenarios if the pitch is dead and you need stock overs or in the SC, enough to justify their inclusion.

 

[Socerer 01]

Pattinson - obviously injured a lot but was potentially a great
Boland - worldclass in the right conditions
Neser - never given a chance
Jye Richardson - wrecked by injury but a worldclass talent

Australia could often have played 4 quicks by adding 1 of the above to their regular pace triumvirate, dropping Lyon, and getting part-time spin out of the likes of Smith, Labuschagne, and Head but saw the important balance that Lyon gives their side.

England before Stokes was captain would have absolutely done what you said in the last paragraph

 

[subshakerz]

Not really a practical question. There's no scenario where you're going to be forced to pick one or the other for all conditions. Just leave one out for a spinner if it's going to be a dogtrack of a turner otherwise play the 4 quicks

Yeah but then this logic defeats all our hypothetical ATG XI selections.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you were building one attack for all conditions and had four worldclass pace bowlers, would you remove one to make place for a spinner of Lyon/Swann class?

You are specific about one half of the equation, but not the other. Who are the 4 worldclass pace bowlers?

Also, do you have meaningful part-timers (even a batting allrounder), of either pace or spin variety)?

Finally, what sort of rules/enforcement is in place, in relation to over rate?