Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[Ashes81]

Assuming they'll bat on average 1.5 times per game, then you're talking 15 runs difference.

Unless you can say yes Murali is going to be more effective as a bowler than Warne, but by less than 15 runs over the course of the match, then it's not an issue.

But we have different question here, and respectfully, I'd suggest the answers are obvious:

-Do lower order runs make someone a better cricketer YES
-Do lower order runs make someone a better bowler NO
-Do lower order runs determine selection THEY MAY DO IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES BUT NOT NORMALLY

With tailenders it's not just about the runs they score, it's also about how many runs are scored at the other end whilst they're batting.

Also if a tailender hangs about, even without many runs, it can wear the opposition down a bit.

So Warne's batting is worth more than 15 runs per game over Murali in my view.

The obvious recent example would be Jack Leach against the Aussies at Headingley when his long stay at the crease didn't produce many runs, but it allowed Stokes to win the game for England.

Obviously when selecting bowlers it's their bowling that is the priority but you do have to consider their all round game.

 

[Brook's side]

With tailenders it's not just about the runs they score, it's also about how many runs are scored at the other end whilst they're batting.

Also if a tailender hangs about, even without many runs, it can wear the opposition down a bit.

So Warne's batting is worth more than 15 runs per game over Murali in my view.

The obvious recent example would be Jack Leach against the Aussies at Headingley when his long stay at the crease didn't produce many runs, but it allowed Stokes to win the game for England.

Obviously when selecting bowlers it's their bowling that is the priority but you do have to consider their all round game.

Yes good point.

In my view the final sentence may or may not apply depending on the bowler, the team and possibly other factors, but otherwise acknowledged.

 

[Migara]

In an ATG side, no. If we select ATG XIs, primary discipline should be enough unless we are considering Sobers or Imran level players.

However in a weaker side, this may matter.

 

[Coronis]

A handsome man enters

Great now I want to rewatch Friends

 

[kyear2]

With tailenders it's not just about the runs they score, it's also about how many runs are scored at the other end whilst they're batting.

Also if a tailender hangs about, even without many runs, it can wear the opposition down a bit.

So Warne's batting is worth more than 15 runs per game over Murali in my view.

The obvious recent example would be Jack Leach against the Aussies at Headingley when his long stay at the crease didn't produce many runs, but it allowed Stokes to win the game for England.

Obviously when selecting bowlers it's their bowling that is the priority but you do have to consider their all round game.

Good post.

 

[subshakerz]

Good post.

Yes good post. So will you follow his logic then on improving your lower order batting rather than dismissing it?

 

[kyear2]

Yes good post. So will you follow his logic then on improving your lower order batting rather than dismissing it?

His last line read, bowling is still the first priority, but batting can factor in.

The 3rd member of my attack has never been a firm selection, Steyn is currently option A, but that changes.

But even outside of that, Marshall and Warne could bat, I don't know why that's ignored.

 

[subshakerz]

His last line read, bowling is still the first priority, but batting can factor in.

No. Stop misrepresenting people. He said you have to factor batting even when prioritizing bowling. That has been the stance of your detractors, not you.

You defend having a tailender at no.8

 

[TheJediBrah]

You defend having a tailender at no.8

If his bowling is sufficiently better than the alternative, having a tail-ender at 8 is better than a bowling all-rounder

if you're choosing between McGrath at 8 or Mark Ealham, McGrath will win you more games

 

[subshakerz]

If his bowling is sufficiently better than the alternative, having a tail-ender at 8 is better than a bowling all-rounder

if you're choosing between McGrath at 8 or Mark Ealham, McGrath will win you more games

We are talking about the ATG setting. Otherwise what you said is obvious.

What if your choice is Mark Ealham or Mullaly at no.8?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Otherwise what you said is obvious.

Glad you came around

 

[kyear2]

No. Stop misrepresenting people. He said you have to factor batting even when prioritizing bowling. That has been the stance of your detractors, not you.

You defend having a tailender at no.8

I never have.

You do realise, and I've said this multiple times...

Marshall and Warne were good enough to fill that role for the two greatest and most successful teams of All Time.

They weren't a handicap, in fact they were both assets, playing match winning and saving innings. If that role is so very crucial, those teams surely would have been crippled by them? Were they?

Why do u have to believe there's only one way to be successful
These teams had great specialists, aggressive ones at that, and great catching. That's Australia, WI and SA, but you believe it has to this way.

 

[subshakerz]

I never have.

You do realise, and I've said this multiple times...

Marshall and Warne were good enough to fill that role for the two greatest and most successful teams of All Time.

Marshall and Warne are tailenders, not ARs

 

[subshakerz]

Glad you came around

Well the dispute is when the specialist bowler is at a level close to the bowler who can bat. It has always been that.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall and Warne are tailenders, not ARs

Who says they need to be all rounders?

 

[subshakerz]

Who says they need to be all rounders?

If they are not ARs, they are at best useful tailenders.

Let's make this simple. If Marshall and Warne had the same batting ability of McGrath and Murali, who would your no.8-11 in your ATG side be?