Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[kyear2]

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

Exactly.

 

[subshakerz]

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

This sounds reasonable but then think of the serious drawback of having a tail of four bunnies. I think practically most teams look for at least one with some serious batting ability and are willing to trade a slightly better specialist for him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This sounds reasonable but then think of the serious drawback of having a tail of four bunnies. I think practically most teams look for at least one with some serious batting ability and are willing to trade a slightly better specialist for him.

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

 

[Starfighter]

What

It's a joke, albeit a bad one. The idea that bowlers need to bat, and in particular it being seemingly being a selection factor for spin bowlers, has been a bit of a trope in English cricket, both at national and county level, for a while.

 

[sledger]

It's a joke, albeit a bad one. The idea that bowlers need to bat, and in particular it being seemingly being a selection factor for spin bowlers, has been a bit of a trope in English cricket, both at national and county level, for a while.

Yeah I get the joke, it just (to me anyway) doesn't really work because the only England spinners I can recall over the last 20-30 years who were any good at batting were Swann (who would have got in the team as a bowler alone anyway) and Giles. Most of the rest that I recall (e.g., Tufnell, Leach and Panesar) have been basically useless with the bat.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah I get the joke, it just (to me anyway) doesn't really work because the only England spinners I can recall over the last 20-30 years who were any good at batting were Swann (who would have got in the team as a bowler alone anyway) and Giles. Most of the rest that I recall (e.g., Tufnell, Leach and Panesar) have been basically useless with the bat.

The selection of Moeen Ali for both of the last two home Ashes series comes to mind. Oh, and Croft too. Hartley in India as well, though that was also a vibe pick. And it's been mentioned in articles a few times in the past couple of years county teams preferring ones who can bat.

Also Leach isn't useless with the bat, he played one of the most irritating innings of all time.

 

[sledger]

I would count Moeen as a genuine AR tbf.

 

[shortpitched713]

Why do you think England select Joe Root these days? He's clearly the best batting spinner.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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

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.

 

[Starfighter]

I would count Moeen as a genuine AR tbf.

I'd say a bits and pieces player etc. though that's partly influenced by his being gash against us. In particular his Edgbaston 2/130 was shameful. There's those five fors against India and SA though. Those were delectable scorecards to wake up to.

His bowling stats are better than Emburey's - who was someone who seems to have been kept around partly for their batting. Swann aside England's spin bowling since pretty much all pitches became covered by the late 70s has been an unending parade of mediocrity (or worse).

The amount of chances Tufnell got actually surprises me considering how he performed and his inability to bat or field. His domestic figures are better than competitors' and he clearly had a lot of talent, but both his head and runup/action weren't quite together. Conversely Such looks better to me than people give him credit for.

 

[reyrey]

Yeah I get the joke, it just (to me anyway) doesn't really work because the only England spinners I can recall over the last 20-30 years who were any good at batting were Swann (who would have got in the team as a bowler alone anyway) and Giles. Most of the rest that I recall (e.g., Tufnell, Leach and Panesar) have been basically useless with the bat.

Spinners who could bat. Croft, Salisbury, Illingworth, Batty Rashid, Bess

 

[reyrey]

The amount of chances Tufnell got actually surprises me considering how he performed and his inability to bat or field. His domestic figures are better than competitors' and he clearly had a lot of talent, but both his head and runup/action weren't quite together. Conversely Such looks better to me than people give him credit for.

Tufnell was a very useful once foot marks came into play.

 

[sledger]

Illingworth played so long ago that I basically discounted him from my consideration, and Gareth Batty's batting average is barely better than Leach's. Rashid is a player who would also have (and is) been picked for his bowling alone.

 

[reyrey]

Illingworth played so long ago that I basically discounted him from my consideration, and Gareth Batty's batting average is barely better than Leach's. Rashid is a player who would also have (and is) been picked for his bowling alone.

Batty averages 23 at first class level, Leach averages 14.

Rashids FC average is 32 which is better than Swann and Giles.

 

[sledger]

None of them were selected based on their batting though. That is the point I was making.

 

[capt_Luffy]

None of them were selected based on their batting though. That is the point I was making.

I am somewhat confident atleast Giles was.

 

[sledger]

I am somewhat confident atleast Giles was.

I don't think he was tbh. From what I remember his selection was largely based on the fact that he was the "best" of an utterly lamentable pool of talent (many of which had been tried and failed dismally already - e.g., Schofield etc.), and happened to be a handy batter coming for a number 8.

I mean his batting certainly didn't do his selection chances any harm, but I think he would have been picked and persevered with regardless at the time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Moeen is the definition of a no-rounder

Averages 25 with the bat and 60 with the ball in Ashes cricket

I don't think he was tbh. From what I remember his selection was largely based on the fact that he was the "best" of an utterly lamentable pool of talent (many of which had been tried and failed dismally already - e.g., Schofield etc.), and happened to be a handy batter coming for a number 8.

I mean his batting certainly didn't do his selection chances any harm, but I think he would have been picked and persevered with regardless at the time.

I may be remembering wrong but Giles was selected ahead of Tufnell a few times mostly because of his batting (and possibly fielding) wasn't he?

 

[reyrey]

I may be remembering wrong but Giles was selected ahead of Tufnell a few times mostly because of his batting (and possibly fielding) wasn't he?

He was picked ahead of Panesar for those exact reasons.

 

[sledger]

Moeen is the definition of a no-rounder

Averages 25 with the bat and 60 with the ball in Ashes cricket

I may be remembering wrong but Giles was selected ahead of Tufnell a few times mostly because of his batting (and possibly fielding) wasn't he?

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