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

[Bolo.]

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.

Would you pick Martin (or any other bowler you consider very slightly better than Sobers) ahead of Gary in a 4 man quality attack with at least one player who can bat? The priciples of team selection you are laying out make it sound like you have to.

Or maybe there is a bit of flexibility in how we choose to select teams based on the available resources?

 

[kyear2]

Would you pick Martin (or any other bowler you consider very slightly better than Sobers) ahead of Gary in a 4 man quality attack with at least one player who can bat? The priciples of team selection you are laying out make it sound like you have to.

Or maybe there is a bit of flexibility in how we choose to select teams based on the available resources?

Martin played over 70 tests. And for a normal team, I'm always going best bowler.

For our all time team, I have no idea who my 3rd seamer is, it changes weekly. But the other 3 are Marshall, Warne and McGrath. Wouldn't say that's terribly batting deficient.

 

[Bolo.]

Martin played over 70 tests. And for a normal team, I'm always going best bowler.

For our all time team, I have no idea who my 3rd seamer is, it changes weekly. But the other 3 are Marshall, Warne and McGrath. Wouldn't say that's terribly batting deficient.

Picking Martin over Sobers has got to be the hardest double down on a bad idea I've ever seen anyone on manage on CW.

 

[kyear2]

Picking Martin over Sobers has got to be the hardest double down on a bad idea I've ever seen anyone on manage on CW.

Where did I say that?

But I'll also say, if I were captain, Sobers's over would be severely capped, much closer to Kallis's.

 

[kyear2]

Picking Martin over Sobers has got to be the hardest double down on a bad idea I've ever seen anyone on manage on CW.

In a team of

Sir Leonard Hutton (vc)
Barry Richards^
Sir Donald Bradman (c)
Sir I.V.A. Richards^
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Garfield Sobers^ (5)
Adam Gilchrist

Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

You're telling me that you have to even think about sacrificing bowling for the batting, even down to 11? Just take a look at it.

You don't think the primary objective should be being out the opposition?

 

[smash84]

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.

This is exactly the problem which has been pointed out to him. Always inconsistent in applying his own principles.

 

[Bolo.]

Where did I say that?

But I'll also say, if I were captain, Sobers's over would be severely capped, much closer to Kallis's.

So you aren't picking the better bowler? You mean a lot of batting gain can cover a small bowling loss, even in a team with a strong tail?

Why the argument that the strength of a number 11s batting is not a factor, even when being compared to someone who is not an 11?

 

[kyear2]

This is exactly the problem which has been pointed out to him. Always inconsistent in applying his own principles.

Show the inconsistencies

And again, you-all try to make it seem that I'm alone in my considerations.
McGrath is leading McGrath in the vote for ideal bowling line up. There's a split in opinion that you'll believe everyone should have.

 

[kyear2]

So you aren't picking the better bowler? You mean a lot of batting gain can cover a small bowling loss, even in a team with a strong tail?

Why the argument that the strength of a number 11s batting is not a factor, even when being compared to someone who is not an 11?

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[smash84]

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

The question is pretty clear. Why is the batting of a number 11 not a factor in any way?

Why should Sobers bowling matter at all if specialists are the only ones that matter?

 

[Bolo.]

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

I have a feeling that you do, but just don't like the implications it has to your rigid selection philosophy.

 

[smash84]

I have a feeling that you do, but just don't like the implications it has to your rigid selection philosophy.

It isn't entirely rigid tbf. It is extremely flexible to include certain players while excluding others.

 

[kyear2]

The question is pretty clear. Why is the batting of a number 11 not a factor in any way?

Why should Sobers bowling matter at all if specialists are the only ones that matter?

Why should it?

So Bumrah should be dropped if there's a better batting alternative, even if he's not as good a bowler?

These arguments are getting worse.

One if the two greatest teams of all time had a true no. 11 they wouldn't have dropped for anyone.

Who created this idiotic narrative that all of your bowlers needed to be able to bowl?

Re your second question......

Ahhh, that's what makes Sobers special. He makes the team regardless of his bowling. His batting and catching alone guarantees him a spot.

Why it matters is that all teams needs a 5th option, it doesn't need to be as good as him, so that's just a bonus. Not to mention as I've often said, if I were the captain he would bat and stand at slip as much as possible. Manage him similar to how Kallis was.

None of those two questions honestly made any sense.

Consensus team construction calls for an all rounder in the top order, heck, consensus fielding positions generally calls for 3 slips as well...

 

[Bolo.]

Why should it?

So Bumrah should be dropped if there's a better batting alternative, even if he's not as good a bowler?

These arguments are getting worse.

One if the two greatest teams of all time had a true no. 11 they wouldn't have dropped for anyone.

Who created this idiotic narrative that all of your bowlers needed to be able to bowl?

Re your second question......

Ahhh, that's what makes Sobers special. He makes the team regardless of his bowling. His batting and catching alone guarantees him a spot.

Why it matters is that all teams needs a 5th option, it doesn't need to be as good as him, so that's just a bonus. Not to mention as I've often said, if I were the captain he would bat and stand at slip as much as possible. Manage him similar to how Kallis was.

None of those two questions honestly made any sense.

Consensus team construction calls for an all rounder in the top order, heck, consensus fielding positions generally calls for 3 slips as well...

Ignoring amount played, Bumrah is a better bowler than Rabada, and the difference in their batting doesn't cover the gap.

If you had a choice between Bumrah and Rabada, who would you pick if Rabada averaged 58 with the bat? Or 38, or 27?

 

[kyear2]

Ignoring amount played, Bumrah is a better bowler than Rabada, and the difference in their batting doesn't cover the gap.

If you had a choice between Bumrah and Rabada, who would you pick if Rabada averaged 58 with the bat? Or 38, or 27?

We just see the game differently.

I genuinely don't care about the batting, that literally only comes in all else being equal, as the tie breaker.

I don't know how you grew up in the '80s and 90's and even 2000's seeing what we did and came to this conclusion.

 

[subshakerz]

Ahhh, that's what makes Sobers special. He makes the team regardless of his bowling. His batting and catching alone guarantees him a spot.

Except you just admitted you will drop Sobers for Martin. Congrats.

Now please answer my question below.

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?

 

[Bolo.]

We just see the game differently.

I genuinely don't care about the batting, that literally only comes in all else being equal, as the tie breaker.

I don't know how you grew up in the '80s and 90's and even 2000's seeing what we did and came to this conclusion.

The degree to which tail runs will change games is a difference in how we see the game. Claiming a 50 run batting average difference will just be used as a tiebreaker between bowlers is being obstinately wrong.

You grew up watching the WIs dominate without a spinner. How can you conclude that a spinner is necessary? The answer is because no spinner was a limitation that that they were good enough to overcome. Like having a weaker tail is a limitation that some teams have been able to overcome.

I grew up watching RSA (who had some serious quality issues with specialists) manage results similar to Aus (a GOAT candidate) for several years. The specialists were weaker than AUS in both departments. How could I not conclude ARs make a difference? RSA was never hitting the number 1 rank without them. Not even close.

 

[subshakerz]

I grew up watching RSA (who had some serious quality issues with specialists) manage results similar to Aus (a GOAT candidate) for several years. The specialists were weaker than AUS in both departments. How could I not conclude ARs make a difference? RSA was never hitting the number 1 rank without them. Not even close.

South Africa in the 90s is the biggest rebuttal to Kyears pt. Their success in the SC was down to AR contributions.

 

[Bolo.]

South Africa in the 90s is the biggest rebuttal to Kyears pt. Their success in the SC was down to AR contributions.

The most recent other time anyone had something approximating the quality AR resources to go this route was probably RSA late 60s on. Competition was admittedly lower, but they also hit number 1, and would likely have been considered one of top few AT if not for isolation.

There are just very few AR or AR adjacent players in modern test cricket who are better than your specialists, and above bits and pieces standard. Even the RSA teams were playing pure bowlers and bits and pieces players. If the pure bowlers could bat a fair bit, and all the players were at least close to justifying selection in one department, they would be stronger. This team just doesn't exist though. Countries often don't even have one player like this, let alone a lineup. Might as well ask why, if top order runs are important, teams don't just field a top 7 who all average 50+.

 

[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 want to come back to this. If you watched today, and I know it's T20, but we've seen him do it in tests as well, how can you defend the nonsense about bowlers being able to know how to bat?

According to your thought process, guys like him shouldn't be selected. If you were choosing a team to represent earth of current players, is he making it or does he weaken the batting too much?

@smash84 welcomed to answer as well.

You'll be full of **** sometimes.