Best Attack

[kyear2]

To put somewhat of a bow of this for now, I find it a little interesting that there's a intangible that I use,that no one else even mentions.

I guess I'm way too deep into football and analytics and traits that succeed rather than just face value stats.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you understand that I'm not basing this on ranking but by specific skill sets, traits, compatibility and who I believe would do better is all types of conditions?

That paragraph wasn't about Lara,.read it again.

I can't answer that without starting ****, so I'll leave it alone.

I didn't mis read the poll, and I addressed that in the next post. Yes, a plurality agree that a strong no. 8 is a must (either that or just because Hadlee was just a better better than Steyn and Imran and the batting is coincidental)
The lowest option isn't mine, it's the McGrath less one, where he's replaced by Hadlee you propose to be the viable alternative.

I believe for most that Marshall and McGrath are licks at the top and just wildly disagree and what's the best option for the 3rd.

At the end of the day you can't be choosing your opening bowlers based on batting, it's too important a role. After that, preferences vary.

Once again, you dont answer points.

Answer this: ' By that stroke, shouldn't the batting difference between Marshall/Warne and Imran/Hadlee be amplified? The former becoming bunnys basically.' Explain how Marshall/Warne dont essentially become bunnys at 8/9 in an ATG game based on your logic.

And answer this: '... we can't escape Steyn losing his sting as a 3rd seamer. At least admit there is a slight tradeoff.' Can you agree Steyn isn't an ideal 3rd seamer if it means denying him a new ball, but you rather have him anyways?

 

[kyear2]

That was often the case in the past. Certain bowlers were actively discouraged from taking their batting seriously or exerting themselves in the field.

Wilfred Rhodes could hold a bat even when he was number eleven. Early in his career he came in to tea twenty-odd not out. Lord Hawke cornered him with the strict instruction: “Not too many more please Wilfred”, effectively telling him to get out. Hawke knew that more batting would adversely affect Rhodes' bowling and was eventually proved right.

Sydney Barnes usually appeared at number ten or eleven in Test cricket. He recorded at least a dozen hundreds in league and cup matches and could easily have contributed more with the bat at a higher level. But nobody wanted him to – apart from Rhodes who argued that his batting was being wasted. Barnes' lazy, almost petulant, habit of sticking a boot out in the field was not only tolerated but almost encouraged.

Exhausted after making 257* against Zimbabwe, Wasim Akram found he could hardly run up to bowl. There and then he decided he would not, and could not, become a regular all-rounder.

Marshall could have scored more runs in test cricket of he took it more seriously or.felt it was needed more often.

That's not just my opinion, it's been mentioned countless times before by journalists, teammates and opponents alike. Not saying he was as good as Imran, but he could hold a bat.

The issue for him was that it wasn't prioritized because it was hardly needed. In his pomp we lost all of two matches, and on the odd occasion it was required, you would find he stepped up just as often as others did.

When you look at the bowlers with more impressive batting numbers, it was the ones with weaker batting line ups, where it was more of a necessity and and concerted effort. Of anyone watched us back then, it was, "we're in a good position, go out there have some fun and get back out there to attack again".

Not making excuses, or even trying to create context, it's just the way it was. Nor am I saying he was as good as Imran or that this impacts the conversation at hand, literally just responding to this post.

 

[kyear2]

Once again, you dont answer points.

Answer this: ' By that stroke, shouldn't the batting difference between Marshall/Warne and Imran/Hadlee be amplified? The former becoming bunnys basically.' Explain how Marshall/Warne dont essentially become bunnys at 8/9 in an ATG game based on your logic.

And answer this: '... we can't escape Steyn losing his sting as a 3rd seamer. At least admit there is a slight tradeoff.' Can you agree Steyn isn't an ideal 3rd seamer if it means denying him a new ball, but you rather have him anyways?

Once again, and I can't make this clear enough, you can't bully anyone to respond to anything. You blatantly ignore, and just don't respond to posts you can't attack. There was one argument when you totally ignored two posts and said the 3rd was too long to respond to...even in this exchange there are multiple paragraphs that you are just ignoring.

That being said, yes and no. The same way I don't expect Sober's bowling to be impactful beyond filling overs and keeping conditions tight, and possibly the odd wicket... I'm not looking for any of the lower order bats to contribute consistently in any way that impacts the game.

There's inherent diminished returns that's expected for all of them. Hence why in this scenario it's not a priority for me. Imran was indeed better, but his batting numbers were also undeniably soft. I've mentioned this before, but in a thread about best series performances I was looking at Marshall's India tour in '83, and I was a little shocked that it compared favorably to Imran's home stand against the same foe. But while they scored the same amount of runs from the same amount of innings, one's average was almost double. Marshall also had a legitimate match winning innings in his total as well.
Someone mentioned a few weeks ago how while in his peak he averaged more than Azhar, he scored 600 less runs over that span.

Marshall and Warne could handle a bat to the point it shouldn't be a procession every innings, again it's not that impactful compared to what the top order is doing and how the bowlers can perform.

This isn't to say that your approach is wrong, it's not mine.

Speaking of points you ignore, I've consistently raised the fact that the 3 best teams in our life times had successful runs of varying lengths and none of them had "all rounder types" at no. 8. They put out 4 great to good bowlers and won that way.

I'm deliberately ignoring your last point for various reasons, and we've had this discussion way too many times. I will say that I have watched Steyn and he he effective with the old, intermediate and old ball. I think we forget that he doesn't have sole possession of said ball and all the bowlers rotate through these phases.

 

[subshakerz]

Once again, and I can't make this clear enough, you can't bully anyone to respond to anything. You blatantly ignore, and just don't respond to posts you can't attack. There was one argument when you totally ignored two posts and said the 3rd was too long to respond to...even in this exchange there are multiple paragraphs that you are just ignoring.

It's not just me, others have the same complaint about you. You cherrypick the arguments you want to respond to and then pretend to have established your point. Such an approach, never addressing the core of an argument, is a disservice to good faith discussion.

That being said, yes and no. The same way I don't expect Sober's bowling to be impactful beyond filling overs and keeping conditions tight, and possibly the odd wicket... I'm not looking for any of the lower order bats to contribute consistently in any way that impacts the game.

Marshall and Warne could handle a bat to the point it shouldn't be a procession every innings, again it's not that impactful compared to what the top order is doing and how the bowlers can perform.

You are just contradicting yourself here, buddy. You implied heavily earlier that with Imran/Hadlee it would still be a procession of wickets, now you say with Marshall/Warne it wouldn't be. Just shifting narratives when it suits you.

I think Marshall and Warne will struggle to average in double digits with the bat in an ATG game. Am I wrong?

Speaking of points you ignore, I've consistently raised the fact that the 3 best teams in our life times had successful runs of varying lengths and none of them had "all rounder types" at no. 8. They put out 4 great to good bowlers and won that way.

I have answered this. The ATG teams were demolishing teams much inferior to them and didn't need a bowling AR, but having one would have made them just more effective, same with Gilly not being needed but just adding extra. But if that had one such AR available, they would have played him, as Ponting admitted about Flintoff. The Invincibles had Miller. SA in the 90s had plenty, even SA under Smith had Philander with that bat who was a near AR. India as no.1 had Ashwin/Jadeja. It is a thing.

Also, in these games, we are assuming they are facing similar ATG teams and lower order strength can't be taken for granted the way it would be if they were an ATG team playing normal sides.

I'm deliberately ignoring your last point for various reasons, and we've had this discussion way too many times. I will say that I have watched Steyn and he he effective with the old, intermediate and old ball. I think we forget that he doesn't have sole possession of said ball and all the bowlers rotate through these phases.

I will take your silence on this as an admission that you agree that Steyn doesn't make the ideal 3rd seamer. I also don't think you honestly rate him that highly as an intermediate bowler but you don't want to admit that for your own reasons.

 

[Coronis]

Round and round it goes

 

[Brook's side]

His pace bowling wouldn't be needed and that wouldn't actually be a bad thing for him. He'd probably end up a better spin bowler as that would become his main bowling focus and as the main/lone spin bowling option in the side he'd still end up with plenty of wickets. I'd say 250, averaging low 30s

Roger Harper was WInidies main spin bowling option 1983-1993. He had a significantly better strike rate than Sobers, and he took a total of 46 wickets.

 

[Brook's side]

The thread is called "Best Attack", and there are about 6 pages - including several posts of several paragraphs each - arguing over which of the players are the best batsmen.

 

[Coronis]

The thread is called "Best Attack", and there are about 6 pages - including several posts of several paragraphs each - arguing over which of the players are the best batsmen.

What an astute and witty observation.

You ok mate?

 

[Brook's side]

I can not understand how subshakerz and kyear have got into this argument, or what either of them is hoping to achieve.
Two people who share a passion for and love and knowledge of cricket, discussing something completely abstract and hypothetical, as if it's a custody battle in a bitter divorce.
The thread simply asks for peoples' opinion as to which is the best bowling attack.
There's no need to go at one anothers' throats about whose selection is the 'better' one.
There's no right or wrong answer.

 

[Coronis]

I can not understand how subshakerz and kyear have got into this argument, or what either of them is hoping to achieve.
Two people who share a passion for and love and knowledge of cricket, discussing something completely abstract and hypothetical, as if it's a custody battle in a bitter divorce.
The thread simply asks for peoples' opinion as to which is the best bowling attack.
There's no need to go at one anothers' throats about whose selection is the 'better' one.
There's no right or wrong answer.

Nobody remembers how or why it started.

All we know is the battle has raged for eons, an eternal and futile (albeit sometimes entertaining) struggle.

 

[kyear2]

I can not understand how subshakerz and kyear have got into this argument, or what either of them is hoping to achieve.
Two people who share a passion for and love and knowledge of cricket, discussing something completely abstract and hypothetical, as if it's a custody battle in a bitter divorce.
The thread simply asks for peoples' opinion as to which is the best bowling attack.
There's no need to go at one anothers' throats about whose selection is the 'better' one.
There's no right or wrong answer.

I'm basically defending my position, while he things everyone should share the same one.

And I've said the same thing. Everyone will literally have their own viewpoint and opinions, he believes it's a slam dunk that everyone should believe as he does.

I've explained why I see the game differently, but he insists I respond to every point to justify my opinion.

 

[kyear2]

I should also mention that for me it's a philosophical discussion, how teams couldn't and should be constructed, how I see the game.

For some it's about names, I just have an idea of how I would want to build a perfect team and squad.

 

[srbhkshk]

If I had to pick one from @kyear2 and @subshakerz I will pick subs because the differential between their average post lengths is minor and wouldn't matter all that much in an ATG typing battle, whereas the difference between their trolling abilities is substantial and actually exists.

 

[kyear2]

It's not just me, others have the same complaint about you. You cherrypick the arguments you want to respond to and then pretend to have established your point. Such an approach, never addressing the core of an argument, is a disservice to good faith discussion.


You are just contradicting yourself here, buddy. You implied heavily earlier that with Imran/Hadlee it would still be a procession of wickets, now you say with Marshall/Warne it wouldn't be. Just shifting narratives when it suits you.

I think Marshall and Warne will struggle to average in double digits with the bat in an ATG game. Am I wrong?


I have answered this. The ATG teams were demolishing teams much inferior to them and didn't need a bowling AR, but having one would have made them just more effective, same with Gilly not being needed but just adding extra. But if that had one such AR available, they would have played him, as Ponting admitted about Flintoff. The Invincibles had Miller. SA in the 90s had plenty, even SA under Smith had Philander with that bat who was a near AR. India as no.1 had Ashwin/Jadeja. It is a thing.

Also, in these games, we are assuming they are facing similar ATG teams and lower order strength can't be taken for granted the way it would be if they were an ATG team playing normal sides.


I will take your silence on this as an admission that you agree that Steyn doesn't make the ideal 3rd seamer. I also don't think you honestly rate him that highly as an intermediate bowler but you don't want to admit that for your own reasons.

You can take it as you please, I'm not in the mood to go another 12 rounds on that specific topic.
I've clearly given my reasons as to why I prefer Steyn for the role.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm basically defending my position, while he things everyone should share the same one.

And I've said the same thing. Everyone will literally have their own viewpoint and opinions, he believes it's a slam dunk that everyone should believe as he does.

I've explained why I see the game differently, but he insists I respond to every point to justify my opinion.

That's not true. I've had many polite disagreements with others. But they are very easy becuz they don't hide anything behind passive aggressive jibes and extra long posts.

The problem is that you aren't straightforward with the reasons you come up with your positions and hide them behind abstract logic and supposed principles that you contradict on a regular basis.

And I almost never see you admit when you have made an error. Like in a reasonable world you would admit tradeoffs and costs to your position, modify them and still hold the same teams even.

 

[subshakerz]

You can take it as you please, I'm not in the mood to go another 12 rounds on that specific topic.
I've clearly given my reasons as to why I prefer Steyn for the role.

Steyn ain't an ideal 3rd seamer, you know that and it wouldn't kill you to admit it and still decide to keep him. I would respect you if you did that and showed a willingness to not pretend everything is so clearly spelled out. But no, stay high and mighty.

 

[Brook's side]

Someone should do a thread where people can post an opinion about something, and subshakerz has to change their mind.

 

[subshakerz]

Someone should do a thread where people can post an opinion about something, and subshakerz has to change their mind.

I have a poor track record of that. I end up getting folks to dig in.

 

[Bolo.]

Not really sure, probably an extra 20 or so? That's assuming they aren't following each other back into the hut.

The part that is being missed is that lower order batting isn't something that can be consistently relied on, you might get a 30* then consecutive single figures.

There's no team in history where the selectors sat down and said let's just chose these guys based on batting. And for a team with this batting line up, yeah, just pick the best bowlers.

I don't think they would add as much as that extra, at least not off their own bats. They managed 50 or so per innings against WIs. Lower against a world XI. With Steyn and Mcgrath adding close to 10, its probably a bit more than 30 extra combined. Which is still a lot. The middle order bats are only adding 40 or so RPI against an ATG attack- it's close to a free ATG bat. Plus there are partnership runs... sticking around when someone like Sobers is on a rampage is potentially worth a lot.

You are off about the reliability. Bats of all quality get out cheap before they are set. And you don't have an opportunity to score 400 from 8 or 9. They will manage 50 or so far more frequently than a single specialist bat would.