Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[subshakerz]

In judging bowlers around the same level, would the batting ability of those who are considered useful tailenders like Marshall/Warne be significant enough factors to be rated ahead of bowlers who are bunny's like McGrath/Murali?

Assuming a 10 batting point different over the course of a career, is that significant enough of team value to give an edge to a bowler at a close level with other bowlers?

Or are all tailend runs irrelevant in these assessments unless they reach AR level? And what is the level when it starts being a factor?

 

[sledger]

Having a bowler who can bat a bit is obviously useful, but it's not grounds for selection at all (unless they're genuine ARs) if they're not good enough to get in the team on their bowling alone imo.

It's a bit of an icing on the cake thing for me. No point having good icing if the cake itself is crap.

 

[Qlder]

To my knowledge Australia has always picked their best 4 bowlers regardless of how well they bat. Otherwise Gillespie would have never been dropped first test after his double hundred and Neser would have been locked into #8 for last 3 years

Edit: and we definitely would never have the tail we had in last years Ashes, probably the worst tail for a long time

8. Cummins
9. Lyon
10. Boland
11. Hazlewood

 

[Red]

To my knowledge Australia has always picked their best 4 bowlers regardless of how well they bat. Otherwise Gillespie would have never been dropped first test after his double hundred and Neser would have been locked into #8 for last 3 years

Edit: and we definitely would never have the tail we had in last years Ashes, probably the worst tail for a long time

8. Cummins
9. Lyon
10. Boland
11. Hazlewood

I think in living memory Australia has had guys batting at 8 and usually 9 who are at least handy with the bat. Going back to the 80s:

Cummins
Starc
Warne
Johnson
Pattinson
Lee
Gillespie
Fleming
Hughes
Reiffel

 

[Qlder]

I think in living memory Australia has had guys batting at 8 and usually 9 who are at least handy with the bat. Going back to the 80s:

Cummins
Starc
Warne
Johnson
Pattinson
Lee
Gillespie
Fleming
Hughes
Reiffel

Yes, but they didn't pick any of those bowlers because they could bat #8, it just worked out that 1 of the 4 best bowlers was always handy at #8

 

[Red]

Yes, but they didn't pick any of those bowlers because they could bat #8, it just worked out that 1 of the 4 best bowlers was always handy at #8

Yeh I was pretty much agreeing with you.

Wondering whether Greg Matthews, Tony Dodemaide and Simon O’Donnell might’ve been selected as bowlers ahead of better bowlers for batting ability.

Could be wrong. Think since then we’ve definitely selected the best bowlers.

 

[Qlder]

Yeah Greg Matthews was the one exception I was thinking of. He was picked as #1 spinner batting #8 but became so good at batting he moved up to #7 (Healy at #8) and ended up averaging 41 with bat while his bowling dropped off.

But then he was replaced by Warne as sole spinner to prove again they didn't care about his batting when selecting the 4 best bowlers

Edit: in his last 10 tests as 4th bowler Matthews averaged 50.10 batting #7. He was then dropped for Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

Also that more than useful chap known as Steve Smith

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 could Warnes runs ever serve as a tiebreaker in deciding between him and Murali?

 

[AndrewB]

Yeah Greg Matthews was the one exception I was thinking of. He was picked as #1 spinner batting #8 but became so good at batting he moved up to #7 (Healy at #8) and ended up averaging 41 with bat while his bowling dropped off.

But then he was replaced by Warne as sole spinner to prove again they didn't care about his batting when selecting the 4 best bowlers

Edit: in his last 10 tests as 4th bowler Matthews averaged 50.10 batting #7. He was then dropped for Warne. Pity our batting was stacked as he could have possibly become a great allrounder batting #6 in any other era?

His bowling average in his last 10 Tests was 61, so they'd have been picking him as a batter who could bowl a bit.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah Greg Matthews was the one exception I was thinking of. He was picked as #1 spinner batting #8 but became so good at batting he moved up to #7 (Healy at #8) and ended up averaging 41 with bat while his bowling dropped off.

But then he was replaced by Warne as sole spinner to prove again they didn't care about his batting when selecting the 4 best bowlers

Edit: in his last 10 tests as 4th bowler Matthews averaged 50.10 batting #7. He was then dropped for Warne.

Lol, I didn't knew much of Greg Mathews and looking at stats guru had thought he was a batting allrounder, kinda like Cowper but better bowler.......

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Quality of bowling is obviously more important in assessing bowlers than their batting.

But also obviously, if two player are ~equal on bowling but one bats much better then that would make them the better cricketer.

So: yes, tailend runs matter (a bit).

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean, else how come Murali ranks consistently ahead of Warne in bowling polls, but seldom makes the AT XI team.....

 

[Nintendo]

If your asking me to pick between hadlee and a similar bowler who's a #10 averaging ~12 w/ the bat I'm gonna pick hadlee. Otherwise not that big a deal. Fielding for tailenders is more important.

 

[Coronis]

I don’t really like doing overall “cricketer” ratings, or even allrounder ratings, as comparing between batting and bowling gets extremely subjective. If you’re asking if say Warne is a better cricketer than Murali despite me considering Murali a (less than a paper sheet) better bowler than Warne, then the answer is yes, but it will only factor in when there is almost no gap between the bowlers (in my mind)

 

[Brook's side]

If your asking me to pick between hadlee and a similar bowler who's a #10 averaging ~12 w/ the bat I'm gonna pick hadlee. Otherwise not that big a deal. Fielding for tailenders is more important.

?????????????????????????

 

[kyear2]

Yeah Greg Matthews was the one exception I was thinking of. He was picked as #1 spinner batting #8 but became so good at batting he moved up to #7 (Healy at #8) and ended up averaging 41 with bat while his bowling dropped off.

But then he was replaced by Warne as sole spinner to prove again they didn't care about his batting when selecting the 4 best bowlers

Edit: in his last 10 tests as 4th bowler Matthews averaged 50.10 batting #7. He was then dropped for Warne.

Exactly, that's how the great teams prioritize it.

Wonder how that turned out.

Quality of bowling is obviously more important in assessing bowlers than their batting.

But also obviously, if two player are ~equal on bowling but one bats much better then that would make them the better cricketer.

So: yes, tailend runs matter (a bit).

And that's fair as well

 

[Brook's side]

Do tailend runs makes someone a better bowler?

 

[kyear2]

I don’t really like doing overall “cricketer” ratings, or even allrounder ratings, as comparing between batting and bowling gets extremely subjective. If you’re asking if say Warne is a better cricketer than Murali despite me considering Murali a (less than a paper sheet) better bowler than Warne, then the answer is yes, but it will only factor in when there is almost no gap between the bowlers (in my mind)

Reasonable

 

[subshakerz]

Exactly, that's how the great teams prioritize it.

Any team would be mental to pick Mathews over Warne.