Pick the ideal batsman for these scenarios

[Bolo.]

I guess that’s my difference then, I don’t see reverse swing as being particularly important or necessary.

It's a big weapon, and comes at a time when bowlers are often struggling.

Pick ATG names out of a hat for a team, and more often that not they will be on top of even ATGs with a newish ball. But the bats are going to come into their own when the ball gets soft.

 

[sayon basak]

Yup. He was a seam and outswing specialist. Somewhat different to McGrath.

Like the description that Boycott provided.
"could swing the ball out and nip it back a bit"

 

[subshakerz]

I guess that’s my difference then, I don’t see reverse swing as being particularly important or necessary.

Why not?

 

[Coronis]

Why not?

Obviously I don’t have evidence to support this but its effectiveness seems highly overrated to me. And the rare bowlers who are effective with it usually seem to be hyperfocused on it, leaving it as basically the only tool in their armoury.

In the context of my ATG team I’m very happy with Marshall and Hadlee being very versatile bowlers + the best line and length bowler to ever exist that I don’t think having someone who can reverse it will improve the attack.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a big weapon, and comes at a time when bowlers are often struggling.

Pick ATG names out of a hat for a team, and more often that not they will be on top of even ATGs with a newish ball. But the bats are going to come into their own when the ball gets soft.

Yeah reverse is simply an important part of the game at this point.

I don't know how we can pick an ATG XI and not have a reverse specialist there, ideally third pacer. You want to cover all conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

Obviously I don’t have evidence to support this but its effectiveness seems highly overrated to me. And the rare bowlers who are effective with it usually seem to be hyperfocused on it, leaving it as basically the only tool in their armoury.

In the context of my ATG team I’m very happy with Marshall and Hadlee being very versatile bowlers + the best line and length bowler to ever exist that I don’t think having someone who can reverse it will improve the attack.

I'm not sure about Hadlee on a flat track frankly.

I wouldn't want an attack without at least someone capable of using the old ball.

 

[Thala_0710]

Obviously I don’t have evidence to support this but its effectiveness seems highly overrated to me. And the rare bowlers who are effective with it usually seem to be hyperfocused on it, leaving it as basically the only tool in their armoury.

In the context of my ATG team I’m very happy with Marshall and Hadlee being very versatile bowlers + the best line and length bowler to ever exist that I don’t think having someone who can reverse it will improve the attack.

Bumrah is very effective with the reverse. Not nearly the only weapon in his arsenal though

 

[Bolo.]

Obviously I don’t have evidence to support this but its effectiveness seems highly overrated to me. And the rare bowlers who are effective with it usually seem to be hyperfocused on it, leaving it as basically the only tool in their armoury.

In the context of my ATG team I’m very happy with Marshall and Hadlee being very versatile bowlers + the best line and length bowler to ever exist that I don’t think having someone who can reverse it will improve the attack.

That's basically just Waqar.

Guys like Wasim, Imran, and Steyn bring plenty more to the table. Donald and Bumrah too if we are talking about players less well known for reverse.

 

[Coronis]

I'm not sure about Hadlee on a flat track frankly.

I wouldn't want an attack without at least someone capable of using the old ball.

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment IMG_1487.png

 

[sayon basak]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

Damn Underwood really suffers in this metric.

 

[kyear2]

1.Hadlee would just get rid of all the batsmen at the other end

2.Ashwin and Kumble will win the match easily so it doesn't matter.

3.Okay 1 over of McGrath is doable, a defensively sound bat like Dravid or Boycott

4.Im sending a nightwatchman what's there to gain by sending your best bat to face Ambrose for 1 over.

5.Probably Miandad he grew up in those conditions and probably knows the umpire too.

6. I reckon Sobers would calm him down pretty quickly

7.You'd need a finisher so I'd go Mike Hussey

 

[capt_Luffy]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

Damn..... Didn't expect Barnes to be the Best here

 

[sayon basak]

Damn..... Didn't expect Barnes to be the Best here

Lillee and Rabada also does really Good. Murali and Grimmett (and Ashwin probably) too.

 

[Coronis]

Damn..... Didn't expect Barnes to be the Best here

tbf his is from quite a low sample size, only 7 matches. (its from over a year ago, Bumrah’s sample size was 5)

And yeah obviously not perfect. For example if Lindwall conceded 7 more runs in Laker’s match, it would be a part of the list.

 

[Burgey]

Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman

 

[subshakerz]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

Wow Barnes

 

[kyear2]

I guess that’s my difference then, I don’t see reverse swing as being particularly important or necessary.

Interesting, and I kind of agree.

The 3 greatest of all time managed to be that successful without utilizing it. And that was with old and new ball alike.

I look at it from the perspective that it's best to have every advantage you possibly van, but those guys were the best and didn't exactly struggle to get wickets..

Someone should do a poll.

 

[subshakerz]

Interesting, and I kind of agree.

The 3 greatest of all time managed to be that successful without utilizing it. And that was with old and new ball alike.

I look at it from the perspective that it's best to have every advantage you possibly van, but those guys were the best and didn't exactly struggle to get wickets..

Someone should do a poll.

Nobody considers reverse as important as regular swing or seam, but it is still important if the goal is a well rounded attack to cover all contingencies.

Historically (since you are a guy who likes precedent) varied pace attacks work best. So I wouldn't repeat a conventional swinger or seamer for a third pacer position.

Roberts/Croft/Garner/Holding, McGrath/Lee/Gillespie, Steyn/Morkel/Philander and Starc/Hazelwood/Cummins are all great examples.

Hence if we agree that Marshall and one of McGrath or Hadlee are given, last place should be Wasim, Steyn or Imran, all somewhat different.

What do you think?

 

[ataraxia]

Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Bradman
Holding's mum
Neesham

 

[kyear2]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

That's instructional

Ambrose is always somewhat ignored in a lot of these discussions, yet always shows out well in these metrics