Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[kyear2]

It's more of a drawback to have a bowler who's not as good

I don't understand how this isn't the priority.

I think I will disagree on that. It's not just how many runs the last 4 batsmen make, but if they are genuine 11s and can't bat for life, it will be hard for a top order batsman to even build a partnership with them.

This is hardly ever the scenario though, and as @Line and Length highlighted, even McGrath improved at the end of his career to at least not to be a walking wicket.

I want to phrase this correctly, yes it's ideal if all 4 aren't absolute bunnies,.but if u have an attack like the quartet and none of them could bat, I think you kinda happily still go with that.

For me it can't be the primary consideration.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't understand how this isn't the priority.



This is hardly ever the scenario, and as @Line and Length highlighted, even McGrath improved at the end of his career to at least not be a walking wicket.

I want to phrase this correctly, yes it's ideal if all 4 aren't absolute bunnies,.but if u have an attack like the quartet and none of them could bat, I think you kinda happily still go with that.

Depends really. Marshall was pretty capable as a bat, and Holding, Roberts and Garner could hold their own. But taking even 4 McGrath level batsmen, I would prefer to not.

 

[reyrey]

Certainly not because of his fielding. Giles' fielding was infamously poor. It's where the whole "Wheelie Bin" nickname came from.

The "Wheelie Bin" was in reference to his bowling run up/action. He was very good in the field and a safe pair of hands.

 

[kyear2]

Depends really. Marshall was pretty capable as a bat, and Holding, Roberts and Garner could hold their own. But taking even 4 McGrath level batsmen, I would prefer to not.

It depends on the strength of you batting as well. If you have a line up like Australia '00s or the sudsequesnt SA team, you can carry that line up easier.

I look at it from the perspective of when we're in camp, I'll be looking for the guys that shows me the traits I'm looking for, troubling the batsmen more.

This also brings me back to a conversation with ORS about my favorite topic. He says that to him slip fielding is somewhat important, but not enough that past avergae / competent, that it's a consideration.

I disagree on that take, but guess it's the same for me here. Be at least useful, but past a certain level of competence, at least for no. 8, it's not a primary consideration.

But yes, 4 Martin's isn't ideal, but if they are clearly your best bowlers, what do you do?

 

[capt_Luffy]

It depends on the strength of you batting as well. If you have a line up like Australia '00s or the sudsequesnt SA team, you can carry that line up easier.

I look at it from the perspective of when we're in camp, I'll be looking for the guys that shows me the traits I'm looking for, troubling the batsmen more.

This also brings me back to a conversation with ORS about my favorite topic. He says that to him slip fielding is somewhat important, but not enough that past avergae / competent, that it's a consideration.

I disagree on that take, but guess it's the same for me here. Be at least useful, but past a certain level of competence, at least for no. 8, it's not a primary consideration.

But yes, 4 Martin's isn't ideal, but if they are clearly your best bowlers, what do you do?

Depends what my 5th option is. And again, the question on the poll was does tailend runs matters, and the answer is quite easily yes, the degree is dependent on each individual and team strength and will vary between each poster, in general not getting to be much important for most.

 

[Coronis]

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

Well yeah this is why I pick Warne.

It depends on the strength of you batting as well. If you have a line up like Australia '00s or the sudsequesnt SA team, you can carry that line up easier.

I look at it from the perspective of when we're in camp, I'll be looking for the guys that shows me the traits I'm looking for, troubling the batsmen more.

This also brings me back to a conversation with ORS about my favorite topic. He says that to him slip fielding is somewhat important, but not enough that past avergae / competent, that it's a consideration.

I disagree on that take, but guess it's the same for me here. Be at least useful, but past a certain level of competence, at least for no. 8, it's not a primary consideration.

But yes, 4 Martin's isn't ideal, but if they are clearly your best bowlers, what do you do?

I guess New Zealand is as good a place for this as any. (or SL)

Say you have 4 Hadlee/Murali level bowlers, who are all Chris Martin with the bat, do you pick one of Southee/Boult/Wagner or Vaas/Herath to replace one of them?

 

[kyear2]

Depends what my 5th option is. And again, the question on the poll was does tailend runs matters, and the answer is quite easily yes, the degree is dependent on each individual and team strength and will vary between each poster, in general not getting to be much important for most.

And even though sometimes it gets heated, it's still good that there's divergent views on this and other matters. If everyone has the same views it would be a boring place.

 

[kyear2]

Well yeah this is why I pick Warne.


I guess New Zealand is as good a place for this as any. (or SL)

Say you have 4 Hadlee/Murali level bowlers, who are all Chris Martin with the bat, do you pick one of Southee/Boult/Wagner or Vaas/Herath to replace one of them?

I ended the post with a question for a reason, I'm not sure.

As I said, it's not ideal if all 4 are literally useless, and if I'm chairing the selection panel and there's divergent views, ****.....

If the top 6 is less that ideal, and all 4 are Chris Martin level, I may have to agree to change out the 3rd seamer.

You?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I guess New Zealand is as good a place for this as any. (or SL)

Say you have 4 Hadlee/Murali level bowlers, who are all Chris Martin with the bat, do you pick one of Southee/Boult/Wagner or Vaas/Herath to replace one of them?

I ended the post with a question for a reason, I'm not sure.

As I said, it's not ideal if all 4 are literally useless, and if I'm chairing the selection panel and there's divergent views, ****.....

If the top 6 is less that ideal, and all 4 are Chris Martin level, I may have to agree to change out the 3rd seamer.

You?

Lol. It's a question where I will absolutely NOT. The difference in bowling is too great to make up for with the added batting benefit. Bowl them out as cheaply as possible (should really be able to restrict most lineups under 200 in anything but absolute roads) and hope the batsmen can atleast score that much.

 

[kyear2]

Lol. It's a question where I will absolutely NOT. The difference in bowling is too great to make up for with the added batting benefit. Bowl them out as cheaply as possible (should really be able to restrict most lineups under 200 in anything but absolute roads) and hope the batsmen can atleast score that much.

The issue with 4 Chis Martin's is that "for 6" is for all intents and purposes "all out".

And I agree that one person isn't going to make that big of a differnce, but the thought of 4 literal walking wickets is compromising.

But yeah, the bowling drop off is a concern. The good thing about regular test level is that two Hadlee's and a Murali may be able to handle teams in their own? Plus can all literally bowl all day.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The issue with 4 Chis Martin's is that "for 6" is for all intents and purposes "all out".

And I agree that one person isn't going to make that big of a differnce, but the thought of 4 literal walking wickets is compromising.

But yeah, the bowling drop off is a concern. The good thing about regular test level is that two Hadlee's and a Murali may be able to handle teams in their own? Plus can all literally bowl all day.

It's was a topic where I expected you to go with those 4 and you may expect me to differ; but being all out at 6 down is hardly different than Wagner coming to bat as the last wicket. Again, the bowling difference is just too huge in this instance to be a factor for me. I would consider it if I got a Botham or Kapil instead of Wagner or Southee.

 

[kyear2]

It's was a topic where I expected you to go with those 4 and you may expect me to differ; but being all out at 6 down is hardly different than Wagner coming to bat as the last wicket. Again, the bowling difference is just too huge in this instance to be a factor for me. I would consider it if I got a Botham or Kapil instead of Wagner or Southee.

Fully agree. But..... It's like might as well declare, no hope for even an extra 20 runs.

But you're probably right

 

[capt_Luffy]

Fully agree. But..... It's like might as well declare, no hope for even an extra 20 runs.

But you're probably right

As I said, probably exchange one for atleast a Kapil Dev. Anything less, I am running at a loss.

 

[kyear2]

As I said, probably exchange one for atleast a Kapil Dev. Anything less, I am running at a loss.

Thankfully that scenario would never exist.

 

[kyear2]

What was probably the worst tail ever?

And staying on that road, what's some of the worse units overall?

Not a terrible idea for a thread tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

It's more of a drawback to have a bowler who's not as good

Is it? You are assuming there are four quality bowling options always available. A better specialist in certain cases if not quality enough may still be a detriment.

 

[subshakerz]

What was probably the worst tail ever?

And staying on that road, what's some of the worse units overall?

Not a terrible idea for a thread tbh.

WI in the 90s I would guess.

 

[subshakerz]

This is hardly ever the scenario though, and as @Line and Length highlighted, even McGrath improved at the end of his career to at least not to be a walking wicket.

I want to phrase this correctly, yes it's ideal if all 4 aren't absolute bunnies,.but if u have an attack like the quartet and none of them could bat, I think you kinda happily still go with that.

For me it can't be the primary consideration.

Forget the WI quartet. Think of a median bowling attack.

What if your better specialist 4th bowler is someone like Alan Mullaly? Is it worth considering Chris Lewis then?

 

[kyear2]

WI in the 90s I would guess.

Well the 3 secondary areas we always discuss.

Pakistan had some abysmal cordon. Even the last series (though mainly one culprit from memory) and the 90's.

Many long tails.

Hard to gauge bad support bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Well the 3 secondary areas we always discuss.

Pakistan had some abysmal cordon. Even the last series (though mainly one culprit from memory) and the 90's.

Many long tails.

Hard to gauge bad support bowlers.

I was saying WI for worst tail with Walsh and Ambrose but guys like Cuffy or Rose. Very weak tails.