How much did slip cordons affect McGrath's and Wasim's records?

[capt_Luffy]

According to @kyear2, McGrath is head of both Imran and Hadlee as a cricketer, yet Gilly is ahead of Knott and Sobers is ahead of Bradman, and somehow he in his mind is totally consistent...

Can still somewhat except the Gilly one as keeping is much different than other specialist jobs; Sobers makes literally no sense by his logic if he doesn't think they are very close batsmen.....

 

[kyear2]

Dropping catches is more destructive. See how easy that was?

Now answer mine: what will be difference in averages over a career for an ATG pacer with a poor versus a great cordon?

I don't know. WTF

I've acknowledged multiple times it will be lowered. But how much is impossible to determine without knowing how many chances were spilled.

But missing the critical part that most importantly, the team will be better.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, Wasim should've personally given them catching lessons. What a nonsense point you keep bringing up.

Are u intentionally being slow. You lobby, use influence, there someone out there who quite not the same batsman, can offer some level of improvement.

Even in the last series they kept the same dude there dispute losing them the game.

He played almost 20 years including a decent chunk as captain, yes there's more that could have been done, something...

I gave examples of other players being brought into teams to assist with catching support, it's more than important enough to validate making those changes

 

[kyear2]

I am trying to wrap my mind behind what he just said. He is literally blaming the bowlers for the slip poor fielding standards. Unbelievable.

Never said that.

I clearly said each player had built in advantages and disadvantages.

I've also clearly stated that it would have been a disadvantage.

I also said he got to grow up under one of the pioneers of reverse swing that mentored him and helped him to development.

Stop the cherry picking.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I wasn't being slow at all. This entire line of conversation is utterly ridiculous. It's hilarious that you actually seem to think this is something that's Wasim deserves blame for. Carry on, you are beyond help when you get stubborn.

 

[kyear2]

The concept of 'a team can carry a weak number 11' is specious in the discussion of team selection.

Sure, a team can carry a weak number 11. Even selecting Martin over a genuine number 11 is not doing that much damage.

But I dont think anyone has ever selected a genuine number 11 based on batting ability. You are losing a much better bat/weakening a chunk of your batting lineup by leaving out a number 7 (or whatever).

Maybe I think Martin was a slightly better bowler than Sobers. I'm not picking Martin over Sobers because he's a bit better with the ball, and I can afford to carry a weak 11. It would nuke the batting.

For every other bowler, the effect on batting is less pronounced, but still present. The cut off point is for factoring in batting is not 'anyone worse than Sobers'. It's when your team gets worse by losing more through bowling (or balance) than it gains in batting.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Martin / Sobers comp didn't quite land for me.

If I understand correctly you're saying that there no legit justification for a McGrath in an AT scenario even if you believe that's he's the 2nd best on offer because you're worried about loosing batting?

I want to verify that's what you're saying before I respond.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Credit to McGrath for teaching his fielders how to catch

 

[kyear2]

According to @kyear2, McGrath is head of both Imran and Hadlee as a cricketer, yet Gilly is ahead of Knott and Sobers is ahead of Bradman, and somehow he in his mind is totally consistent...

I've explained it countless times, doesn't have to make sense to you.

We've had this discussion, McGrath and Hadlee are close, pretty sure my last list had Paddles at 5 and Pigeon at 6.

Sobers isn't a sure thing at 1, that changes, but if you are the 2nd best batsman on a team, the relief bowler and a premier 2nd slip, that's a lot of value.

Keith Miller of all people called him the greater cricketer.

Gilchrist makes my 1st team, Knott the 2nd, this isn't hard.

 

[kyear2]

Can still somewhat except the Gilly one as keeping is much different than other specialist jobs; Sobers makes literally no sense by his logic if he doesn't think they are very close batsmen.....

Of course I believe they're close batsmen. So are Sachin and Richards.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Of course I believe they're close batsmen. So are Sachin and Richards.

And McGrath and Imran aren't????

And just so we are clear, Lindsay Hassett rated Victor Trumper the Greatest Ever batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

Never said that.

Clearly meant it with your Ambrose example.

I've explained it countless times, doesn't have to make sense to you.

We've had this discussion, McGrath and Hadlee are close, pretty sure my last list had Paddles at 5 and Pigeon at 6.

Sobers isn't a sure thing at 1, that changes, but if you are the 2nd best batsman on a team, the relief bowler and a premier 2nd slip, that's a lot of value.

Keith Miller of all people called him the greater cricketer.

Gilchrist makes my 1st team, Knott the 2nd, this isn't hard.

Again you dodge the actual argument by just repeating your rankings as if they are fact.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know. WTF

I've acknowledged multiple times it will be lowered. But how much is impossible to determine without knowing how many chances were spilled.

But missing the critical part that most importantly, the team will be better.

Do you disagree with my notion that it is enough for their averages to effectively be reversed?

 

[kyear2]

Do you disagree with my notion that it is enough for their averages to effectively be reversed?

No. Becuse I watched both of them. Wasim was ***ier, Glenn was clinical, better even. I'm sure you know this as well.

For at least the 3rd time, it's not his raw average that brings him down slightly.

The same England that Ambrose destroyed, Wasim struggled against. The same Australia team that Ambrose ran though, Wasim was average against. He seemed to make up the difference vs lesser teams.

Then there's the lower order wickets thing, though that might very well be attributed to the cordon issue as well.

So I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Yes McGrath was tremendously aided by literally having some of the best slip fielders ever. But so were a lot of guys.

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Martin / Sobers comp didn't quite land for me.

If I understand correctly you're saying that there no legit justification for a McGrath in an AT scenario even if you believe that's he's the 2nd best on offer because you're worried about loosing batting?

I want to verify that's what you're saying before I respond.

The Martin/Sobers example is not specific to any player. It's a pushback against ideas that a number of posters have, like 'pick your best bowlers no matter what', 'pick your best bowlers as long as your tail isn't too weak', and 'the quality of your number 11 isn't going to matter, even when the other option is not a number 11'.

With a stellar lower order of Imran, Hadlee, and Warne, nobody would pick Martin over Sobers as the 4th (assuming Martin has an edge as a bowler for the sake of argument). The above principles are shot. Everyone is willing to compromise. It's just a question of what level of compromise creates the strongest team.

If you think guys like Mcgrath and Steyn give you the strongest team, hard disagree, but OK. People have different perspectives on quality of players. The picks shouldn't be defended on specious logic with principles you wouldn't follow for others though.

 

[kyear2]

Clearly meant it with your Ambrose example.


Again you dodge the actual argument by just repeating your rankings as if they are fact.

Nothing is fact, everything is perspective.

You ask for my opinion, that's it.

I'm not telling you how to see it, I'm telling you how I do.

It's like you need me to see everything as you do.

Imran just got voted the 3rd of 4th best player.

He's not even making the top 3 for the ideal pace attack. So he's not only nor close to leading the vote, he's 4th, to just make an ATG XI.
He just got voted the 8th best bowler and he wasn't that close to 7th.

But people think he's the greatest ever, and a couple more have him 2nd best.

That makes so little sense to me, but it's your decision.

 

[subshakerz]

No. Becuse I watched both of them. Wasim was ***ier, Glenn was clinical, better even. I'm sure you know this as well.

For at least the 3rd time, it's not his raw average that brings him down slightly.

The same England that Ambrose destroyed, Wasim struggled against. The same Australia team that Ambrose ran though, Wasim was average against. He seemed to make up the difference vs lesser teams.

Then there's the lower order wickets thing, though that might very well be attributed to the cordon issue as well.

So I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Yes McGrath was tremendously aided by literally having some of the best slip fielders ever. But so were a lot of guys.

I am going to ignore your tangent about Imran who nobody brought up, and ask you this way: for an average bowler, how many wickets do you reckon over the course of a career would a poor slip versus a great slip differential be?

 

[kyear2]

The Martin/Sobers example is not specific to any player. It's a pushback against ideas that a number of posters have, like 'pick your best bowlers no matter what', 'pick your best bowlers as long as your tail isn't too weak', and 'the quality of your number 11 isn't going to matter, even when the other option is not a number 11'.

With a stellar lower order of Imran, Hadlee, and Warne, nobody would pick Martin over Sobers as the 4th (assuming Martin has an edge as a bowler for the sake of argument). The above principles are shot. Everyone is willing to compromise. It's just a question of what level of compromise creates the strongest team.

If you think guys like Mcgrath and Steyn give you the strongest team, hard disagree, but OK. People have different perspectives on quality of players. The picks shouldn't be defended on specious logic with principles you wouldn't follow for others though.

I can't stress how much I disagree with your entire premise.

I honestly feel like some have observed history and came away with all the wrong answers.

If some want to do as Benaud advocated and have two all rounders in a team, why not. But if you want to go batting for all four bowlers, it's there that the compromise is made.

You cannot win if you don't bowl out the opposition twice, the cheaper the better. Everything other than putting forward your best bowlers is a compromise, and a direct contradiction of everything history has taught us.

As I've asked Subz, what's more crucial to a team and more likely to cause a team to lose? Having a no. 11 that averages 7, or a porous slip cordon?

It's blatantly obvious which, and a team that consistently spills chances doesn't have a chance to be consistently great, while each of the top 3 or 4 teams had absolute bunnies at 11, but who were excellent bowlers.

Even if your best bowler can't find the right end of a bat to hold, he has to be selected. There's only 4 selected and a weak link can destroy what the others have done, even release the pressure the other three have built up. Can't afford it.

 

[subshakerz]

I am going to ignore your tangent about Imran who nobody brought up, and ask you this way: for an average bowler, how many wickets do you reckon over the course of a career would a poor slip versus a great slip differential be?

@kyear2 will you answer the question?

 

[Bolo.]

I can't stress how much I disagree with your entire premise.

I honestly feel like some have observed history and came away with all the wrong answers.

If some want to do as Benaud advocated and have two all rounders in a team, why not. But if you want to go batting for all four bowlers, it's there that the compromise is made.

You cannot win if you don't bowl out the opposition twice, the cheaper the better. Everything other than putting forward your best bowlers is a compromise, and a direct contradiction of everything history has taught us.

As I've asked Subz, what's more crucial to a team and more likely to cause a team to lose? Having a no. 11 that averages 7, or a porous slip cordon?

It's blatantly obvious which, and a team that consistently spills chances doesn't have a chance to be consistently great, while each of the top 3 or 4 teams had absolute bunnies at 11, but who were excellent bowlers.

Even if your best bowler can't find the right end of a bat to hold, he has to be selected. There's only 4 selected and a weak link can destroy what the others have done, even release the pressure the other three have built up. Can't afford it.

You are shouting about your principles of selection being inviolate in response to a post that shows that you are willing to violate them yourself. You believe in compromise. You just don't like certain compromises.

Can you try stick to relevant stuff in conversation please? As usual, you have a long winded response that does not address the specific points I'm raising.

And as you are still using it, I repeat that your use of the term number 11 is specious. You weaken every batting position in the tail by not playing an AR, not just your 11.

 

[kyear2]

You are shouting about your principles of selection being inviolate in response to a post that shows that you are willing to violate them yourself. You believe in compromise. You just don't like certain compromises.

Can you try stick to relevant stuff in conversation please? As usual, you have a long winded response that does not address the specific points I'm raising.

And as you are still using it, I repeat that your use of the term number 11 is specious. You weaken every batting position in the tail by not playing an AR, not just your 11.

What did I violate?

As I've said in multiple posts there are 4 primary bowlers 6 batsmen, one of which is always reserved for an all-rounder / utility player.

It also comes down to who else is available.

And there's precedent. Bobby Simpson making the Australian team, the only thing Sobers did well the first couple years was excel in the cordon, Hooper keeping his place.

If your team is partly losing due to dropped catches you have to fix it, because it's not sustainable. If your team is losing because of lack of runs, is dropping your no. 11, who may be your best bowler really the best option? Let me answer that for you, that's lunacy. You fix the ****ing batting.

The points you're making makes no sense and there is no history / precedent of it in test cricket. Your 4th bowler bowls as many overs as your other seamers, if he comes on and gives away the shop, everything you've been building towards is immediately lost.


For your last point, I've said up to yesterday, if you want to follow what Benaud did and have two all-rounders, while up to standard, sure. But to think it's the dictating factor for all 3 is just idiotic.

If you believe the top 3 bowlers of all time are Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee and add Warne to the list, what's wrong with that as a bowling attack and a lower batting order. I don't get the justification of omitting who for me is the clear no. 2 all time, because he averages 7 with the bat.
If you need more batting, and believe as apparently some do that Imran is a top 4 player of all time, then swap him for Hadlee and you're set.
But batting can't be the primary criteria, don't see anyone dropping Bumrah. You can afford at least 1.