Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[Hungry Llama]

I think england recently have preferred bowlers who can bat, but they have also picked
genuine tailenders like Parky, and Anderson [although he did make 81]. Topley
looks crap too, but BITD Monty played 50 tests despite being pretty rubbish fielder
and batter. Still find it difficult to believe that he and Anderson survived for nearly an
hour to draw that game at Cardiff. But with england its sometimes hard to make
a comparison as a lot of their batters look like tailenders especially in India and Oz.

 

[subshakerz]

It matters for the team and the results but if I am comparing them as bowlers alone, it wont matter so much.

Yes obviously as bowlers alone, but I am checking if we care enough for tailend runs to put one ahead as a cricketer as a result.

 

[subshakerz]

One player and 5 tests.

It's not silly if that's been a philosophy for which there seems to be a track record to support.

Not really a philosophy. Teams with more better quality resources will prefer better specialists than bit pieces.

 

[Line and Length]

I don't regard #8 as a tail-ender and generally expect some sort of batting ability. As for the real tail 9-11 I feel the best bowlers should be selected regardless of batting. Over time, some of these 'bunnies' can improve if given the proper training. I recall Steve Waugh being appointed as McGrath's batting mentor and there was definite improvement in McGrath's abililty to stick around - particularly if partnering a capable bat.

 

[kyear2]

Obviously it's not why he was picked, but don't forget that Cummins' batting won Australia the 1st test last summer (and effectively the Ashes).
I don't think he's got enough credit for that tbh. Australia were pretty much gone in that game.

Agreed, it's not what he was selected for, and quite frankly he was no better a batsman than the likes of Marshall and Warne.

 

[kyear2]

I don't regard #8 as a tail-ender and generally expect some sort of batting ability. As for the real tail 9-11 I feel the best bowlers should be selected regardless of batting. Over time, some of these 'bunnies' can improve if given the proper training. I recall Steve Waugh being appointed as McGrath's batting mentor and there was definite improvement in McGrath's abuilty to stick around - particularly if partnering a capable bat.

Agree with all of this.

 

[subshakerz]

Agree with all of this.

So do I.

 

[Shady Slim]

I don't regard #8 as a tail-ender and generally expect some sort of batting ability. As for the real tail 9-11 I feel the best bowlers should be selected regardless of batting. Over time, some of these 'bunnies' can improve if given the proper training. I recall Steve Waugh being appointed as McGrath's batting mentor and there was definite improvement in McGrath's abililty to stick around - particularly if partnering a capable bat.

agree with this entirely, but all else equal if i'm stuck in a direct "player comparison" scenario of a pair of true tailenders who i regard as mostly equal bowlers then their batting ability could be the difference on the margins as to how i rate them, especially if it's, for example, one who can bat like jimmy anderson and puts a price on his wicket vs one like shannon gabriel who has a silly swing and inevitably closes the innings sooner than it needs to

 

[subshakerz]

Agreed, it's not what he was selected for, and quite frankly he was no better a batsman than the likes of Marshall and Warne.

Sure but are McGrath or Murali capable of what he did? If not then does he get bonus points?

 

[subshakerz]

agree with this entirely, but all else equal if i'm stuck in a direct "player comparison" scenario of a pair of true tailenders who i regard as mostly equal bowlers then their batting ability could be the difference on the margins as to how i rate them, especially if it's, for example, one who can bat like jimmy anderson and puts a price on his wicket vs one like shannon gabriel who has a silly swing and inevitably closes the innings sooner than it needs to

Yes. For all of @kyear2 and his spin on ATG sides and tailender batting, Australia with Warne, Lee and Gillespie probably had one of the stronger tails in test cricket.

 

[Bolo.]

Tail end performances swing a lot of test results. Draws and wins. Sometime by just surviving in partnerships and sometimes by actually scoring runs. So how well a bowler can bat does change my view of them. As we are limiting this to a small batting gain, it's going to be a small change in my perception of the player.

 

[Bolo.]

In terms of actually selecting a bowler based on a smidge of extra batting, it's very seldom going to make sense. Unless you have a seriously weak tail issue, you aren't dropping a notably better bowler for this type of gain. You probably need a situation where your 3rd best quick is percieved as exactly a tiny bit better with the ball and slightly worse with the bat than your 4th best. This situation is almost never coming up, and you won't really know that it has until after careers are completed anyway- the bowlers need to be so close in quality that you don't know who will perform better at test level.

 

[Coronis]

Not really a philosophy. Teams with more better quality resources will prefer better specialists than bit pieces.

Like Australia and Miller?

Or ATG and Imran?

 

[subshakerz]

Like Australia and Miller?

Or ATG and Imran?

Those are exceptions but Pakistan really did benefit from Imran's batting but he would have made that side as a specialist.

 

[Starfighter]

but it's not grounds for selection at all (unless they're genuine ARs) if they're not good enough to get in the team on their bowling alone imo.

Can you call yourself a proper Englishman while thinking this? When it comes to selection for the England team, at least for spin bowling it often seems to be the main criterion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you're picking one of your main 4 bowlers, then you should always choose the better bowler. Unless it's an extreme example like one is only 0.1% worse than the other but averages 30 with the bat v the other guy averaging 5 . . . then the worse bowler is probably the better choice

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you're picking one of your main 4 bowlers, then you should always choose the better bowler. Unless it's an extreme example like one is only 0.1% worse than the other but averages 30 with the bat v the other guy averaging 5 . . . then the worse bowler is probably the better choice

I would preferably also not have a tail of 4 Chris Martins, and include one or two Tim Southees even if he was more than 0.1% worse

 

[Daemon]

Depends who the better slip catcher is

 

[sledger]

Can you call yourself a proper Englishman while thinking this? When it comes to selection for the England team, at least for spin bowling it often seems to be the main criterion.

What

 

[kyear2]

Tail end performances swing a lot of test results. Draws and wins. Sometime by just surviving in partnerships and sometimes by actually scoring runs. So how well a bowler can bat does change my view of them. As we are limiting this to a small batting gain, it's going to be a small change in my perception of the player.

You know what else swings a lot of matches? Bowling out the opposition cheaply.