Which players would be locks in every OTHER country’s ATG XI?

[Bolo.]

That is a contradiction.

I'm not seeing why this is a hard concept.

A hypothetical ATG bowler struck at 50 against bats of average quality (who typically survived 80 balls) during their actual career.

A hypothetical ATG bat typically survived 100 balls against bowlers of average quality (who typically struck at 60) during their actual career.

This ATG bowler strikes at 60 against an ATG team. The bat survives 90 balls. Insert whatever numbers here. Both their numbers get worse against better opposition, like their averages would.

 

[kyear2]

If Simpson was handy then why is selecting Kallis important?

You seem to be contradicting your own position earlier to dismiss Miller that a fifth bowler isn't really a big deal and Simpson, et al is more than sufficient.

Now suddenly you switch just to shoehorn Kallis?

He's a better batsman and bowler. Improvement in both areas

 

[subshakerz]

He's a better batsman and bowler. Improvement in both areas

You aren't replacing Simpson as opener with Kallis though. Kallis is superfluous in an ATG Aus lineup and you know it.

 

[Coronis]

It took a while, but I’m glad we got off on a tangent.

But the 5th bowler role is what Sobers and Kallis are there for, and was as good as it as anyone ever.

That's literally their role

Actually more than half the time Sobers was opening or first change.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not seeing why this is a hard concept.

A hypothetical ATG bowler struck at 50 against bats of average quality (who typically survived 80 balls) during their actual career.

A hypothetical ATG bat typically survived 100 balls against bowlers of average quality (who typically struck at 60) during their actual career.

This ATG bowler strikes at 60 against an ATG team. The bat survives 90 balls. Insert whatever numbers here. Both their numbers get worse against better opposition, like their averages would.

Lol come on man. These are numbers coming from nowhere because ATGs don't only face average players in their careers.

Most ATG bats struggle to match their career averages when you isolate their records against attacks ATG class bowlers.

It's quite simple. Hunting in a pack for bowlers tends to have much more benefits for average and SR.

 

[subshakerz]

It took a while, but I’m glad we got off on a tangent.




Actually more than half the time Sobers was opening or first change.

Good point. Kallis during his first career half when he was taking 2 wickets a test often bowled first change as well.

 

[kyear2]

Had Sobers not existed, I personally would had taken Sanga and gone with a bowling lineup of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and Murali/McGrath/Barnes

Again trying to substitute quality with quantity.

It's really begining to get tiring to see bowling attacks based on batting ability.

 

[kyear2]

It took a while, but I’m glad we got off on a tangent.




Actually more than half the time Sobers was opening or first change.

And he was probably at his best when he wasn't.

But yeah, in this scenario wouldn't want him shouldering the kind of load he did for that Windies team.

Bat and stand at 2nd. Turn over his hand strictly as needed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Again trying to substitute quality with quantity.

I am really beginning to see bowling attacks based on batting ability.

????
Who among those 5 bowlers you thought doesn't belong in an ATG team conversation??

 

[kyear2]

Lol come on man. These are numbers coming from nowhere because ATGs don't only face average players in their careers.

Most ATG bats struggle to match their career averages when you isolate their records against attacks ATG class bowlers.

It's quite simple. Hunting in a pack for bowlers tends to have much more benefits for average and SR.

To me tts been fairly obvious watching cricket all these years that gets batsmen stats are impacted by great bowlers than the other way round. So in agreement there.
Bowlers stats tend to be more impacted by conditions, though the greats ones seem to overcome that to some extent.

But that doesn't mean every match will be low scoring and great batsmen will break through.

5th bowlers may very well be required but not to the extent that you weaken the batting to accomplish the need.

You don't weaken the batting for the bowling, you don't weaken the bowling for the batting. Both are counterintuitive in my personal opinion.

 

[kyear2]

????
Who among those 5 bowlers you thought doesn't belong in an ATG team conversation??

It's not about not being in the conversation, it's about not picking the best attack.

We've had multiple polls, votes and discussions and the best attack always comes down to either

Marshall, Warne, McGrath and Steyn

Or

Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, McGrath (if not taking into account reverse swing)

Yet when the teams are being formed it's very different.

And now the argument is creeping into the batting as well.

There was just an argument for increasing the value of the batting for the wicket keeping position, because it's in the top 7. But somehow now Miller is a viable option at 6?

It's inconsistent and doesn't make sense to me. No. 6 will be based on bowling, no.7, 8 and possibly 9 based on batting.

You're weakening your batting for the bowling to then turn around and weaken the bowling to bolster the batting.

Please make it make sense please.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not about not being in the conversation, it's about not picking the best attack.

We've had multiple polls, votes and discussions and the best attack always comes down to either

Marshall, Warne, McGrath and Steyn

Or

Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, McGrath (if not taking into account reverse swing)

Yet when the teams are being formed it's very different.

And now the argument is creeping into the batting as well.

There was just an argument for increasing the value of the batting for the wicket keeping position, because it's in the top 7. But somehow now Miller is a viable option at 6?

It's inconsistent and doesn't make sense to me. No. 6 will be based on bowling, no.7, 8 and possibly 9 based on batting.

You're weakening your batting for the bowling to then turn around and weaken the bowling to bolster the batting.

Please make it make sense please.

You are too rigid while forming your team. Just look at them as a collective and the overall value they give you, how good they fit, etc. Picking all-rounders to bat at 6, a specialist keeper who actually knows how to bat (I have very strong feelings on this one particularly), making your tail strong by taking the bowler who can bat ahead of a slightly better bowler; these are things most teams does around the world and in no way shape or form unique or unprecedented. The rigid notion of taking the best for every role, be it that none of your 6 batsmen can turn hands with any effect, your keeper can't bat for life and you have a tail of 4 McGrath level batsmen..... Yeah, that is actually what I find unpractical.

 

[subshakerz]

5th bowlers may very well be required but not to the extent that you weaken the batting to accomplish the need.

You don't weaken the batting for the bowling, you don't weaken the bowling for the batting. Both are counterintuitive in my personal opinion.

I would argue Australia weaken their batting by having Kallis instead of Chappell or Ponting.

You yourself said a 5th bowler for Australia would be 'limited in scope' given the role of the first four bowlers. In that case, Simpson already in the side should suffice.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I would argue Australia weaken their batting by having Kallis instead of Chappell or Ponting.

You yourself said a 5th bowler for Australia would be 'limited in scope' given the role of the first four bowlers. In that case, Simpson already in the side should suffice.

Wait a minute.... How does both Chappell and Ponting make Australia AT XI given among the 3 MOB spots one is for Smith. I mean, if you need someone to bat at 6, surely Border or Waugh comes before both?

 

[subshakerz]

Wait a minute.... How does both Chappell and Ponting make Australia AT XI given among the 3 MOB spots one is for Smith. I mean, if you need someone to bat at 6, surely Border or Waugh comes before both?

Border, Waugh, Ponting, Chappell, pick any two and they are all better than Kallis for me.

 

[kyear2]

You are too rigid while forming your team. Just look at them as a collective and the overall value they give you, how good they fit, etc. Picking all-rounders to bat at 6, a specialist keeper who actually knows how to bat (I have very strong feelings on this one particularly), making your tail strong by taking the bowler who can bat ahead of a slightly better bowler; these are things most teams does around the world and in no way shape or form unique or unprecedented. The rigid notion of taking the best for every role, be it that none of your 6 batsmen can turn hands with any effect, your keeper can't bat for life and you have a tail of 4 McGrath level batsmen..... Yeah, that is actually what I find unpractical.

I've never believed in the notion of bits and pieces players trying to fill one role and weakening the other, for which they're primarily being picked mind you.

And no it's not what most teams do across the world, it's specifically what Australia doesn't do actually, the WI when we had a team as well.

No, I'll not take the better batsman at no 8 who's the inferior bowler. How does that make sense, when you're opening the bowling. How can McGrath, arguably and quite clearly from our last poll the 2nd best bowler ever, be omitted from a 4 man attack? And why, because he averaged under 10 as a batsman? Should Sachin be dropped for Hammond because he can't bowl of catch as well? No.

And to think that Miller can even be possibly better at 6, over an ATG batsman because you need better bowling for the 5th bowling spot, especially when you just selected the better batsman for the 2nd or 3rd spot? Miller isn't even going to get a sniff at a new ball, which is where he did all of his damage.

You don't see the inconsistency? It's crazy


I would also chose Knott 7 days a week over Flower ot Pant and it's also not even a consideration.

Why is this a thing?

 

[subshakerz]

No, I'll not take the better batsman at no 8 who's the inferior bowler. How does that make sense, when you're opening the bowling. How can McGrath, arguably and quite clearly from our last poll the 2nd best bowler ever, be omitted from a 4 man attack? And why, because he averaged under 10 as a batsman? Should Sachin be dropped for Hammond because he can't bowl of catch as well? No.

Hadlee/Marshall/Steyn/Warne

There I did it for you.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I've never believed in the notion of bits and pieces players trying to fill one role and weakening the other, for which they're primarily being picked mind you.

And no it's not what most teams do across the world, it's specifically what Australia doesn't do actually, the WI when we had a team as well.

No, I'll not take the better batsman at no 8 who's the inferior bowler. How does that make sense, when you're opening the bowling. How can McGrath, arguably and quite clearly from our last poll the 2nd best bowler ever, be omitted from a 4 man attack? And why, because he averaged under 10 as a batsman? Should Sachin be dropped for Hammond because he can't bowl of catch as well? No.

And to think that Miller can even be possibly better at 6, over an ATG batsman because you need better bowling for the 5th bowling spot, especially when you just selected the better batsman for the 2nd or 3rd spot? Miller isn't even going to get a sniff at a new ball, which is where he did all of his damage.

You don't see the inconsistency? It's crazy


I would also chose Knott 7 days a week over Flower ot Pant and it's also not even a consideration.

Why is this a thing?

I already said why it makes sense, if both your bowling and batting, or atleast one becomes better and you feel you have a better team combination. What's the rocket science here. You are free to disagree absolutely, but always taking specialists is the best course isn't a great notion.

An attack of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne is very balanced and viable.

 

[kyear2]

I would argue Australia weaken their batting by having Kallis instead of Chappell or Ponting.

You yourself said a 5th bowler for Australia would be 'limited in scope' given the role of the first four bowlers. In that case, Simpson already in the side should suffice.

You have a bias against Kallis, and let's be frank.

It's basically a preference based primarily on sr how we rate our batsmen. Hardly anyone was more productive than Kallis. Australia isn't loosing anything with Kallis over Posting, Chappell, Miller or Border. He's just as good in the slips and a better bowler while loosing absolutely nothing with the bat.

 

[subshakerz]

You have a bias against Kallis, and let's be frank.

It's basically a preference based primarily on sr how we rate our batsmen. Hardly anyone was more productive than Kallis. Australia isn't loosing anything with Kallis over Posting, Chappell, Miller or Border. He's just as good in the slips and a better bowler while loosing absolutely nothing with the bat.

Okay I didn't know you regarded Kallis as a better bat than Ponting and Chappell. Then it's cool so you are consistent with your specialist first approach.