Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

[subshakerz]

Reasonable

Yes. But I wonder, does for example Warne averaging 10 runs moreso than Murali over the course of an entire career translate into anything more than tiebreaker value? Because that average difference between bats would be seen as significant.

Why is it not so for tailenders, isn't it the same runs? Is it crazy to think an extra ten runs an innings actually translate into something net tangible over the course of a career?

 

[Qlder]

Any team would be mental to pick Mathews over Warne.

This is where you "only look at end of career stats" guys don't get it. When Warne was finally selected over Matthews he had 6 Tests, 13 wkts @ 47.61. He wasn't yet the superstar to come so it was easy to see why Matthews was picked over him up until then

 

[Brook's side]

Yes. But I wonder, does for example Warne averaging 10 runs moreso than Murali over the course of an entire career translate into anything more than tiebreaker value? Because that average difference between bats would be seen as significant.

Why is it not so for tailenders, isn't it the same runs? Is it crazy to think an extra ten runs an innings actually translate into something net tangible over the course of a career?

Assuming they'll bat on average 1.5 times per game, then you're talking 15 runs difference.

Unless you can say yes Murali is going to be more effective as a bowler than Warne, but by less than 15 runs over the course of the match, then it's not an issue.

But we have different question here, and respectfully, I'd suggest the answers are obvious:

-Do lower order runs make someone a better cricketer YES
-Do lower order runs make someone a better bowler NO
-Do lower order runs determine selection THEY MAY DO IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES BUT NOT NORMALLY

 

[subshakerz]

This is where you "only look at end of career stats" guys don't get it. When Warne was finally selected over Matthews he had 6 Tests, 13 wkts @ 47.61. He wasn't yet the superstar to come so it was easy to see why Matthews was picked over him up until then

Yeah but Warne from what I recall was being seen as a high talent who would eventually deliver very early on, by Benaud and others.

 

[Brook's side]

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.

They're all allrounders though!

 

[kyear2]

They're all allrounders though!

Meaning?

 

[Brook's side]

Meaning?

They didn't play many tests.

 

[kyear2]

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

I think Warne is a paper's width better than Murali anyways, at worse equals.

 

[kyear2]

They didn't play many tests.

So not just to you, but in general.

It would be fair to say that during their periods of dominance, that lower order batting or all rounders in general weren't a point of focus for neither the WI, Aus nor even SA.

Not to be a dick or derail the thread, but it's been discussed, laughed but undeniable that all 3 teams prioritized specialists, aggression and yes, slip fielding.

Not saying that's the only way to do it, but that's what has worked and is the template for success in the modern game.

 

[Brook's side]

I hadn't realised just how successful South Africa were over a c20 year period actually.
Might put a very basic summary together...

 

[fredfertang]

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

I like cake, especially if it has decent icing

 

[sledger]

I like cake, especially if it has decent icing

I'll let you make me one if you ask nicely.

 

[Ali TT]

I think the answer is in the thread title tbh "Do tailend runs matter in assessing bowlers as cricketers?"

If you're judging them as cricketers then obviously their batting matters.

 

[fredfertang]

I'll let you make me one if you ask nicely.

I can manage a decent flapjack, but my sponges tend to be a deflating experience - perfectly edible though

 

[honestbharani]

It matters for the team and the results but if I am comparing them as bowlers alone, it wont matter so much.

 

[ataraxia]

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

This is a silly generalisation lol. I don't suppose Ashton Agar got picked for his last test for his bowling?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's one of those issues that probably doesn't matter when one's hypothetically assessing the merits of two ATGs. If I selected (say) CEL Ambrose ahead of GD McGrath it wouldn't be because Sir Curtly was a 9/10 and Narromine's leading chunterer was an 11.

However when actually selecting an XI to take the pitch it probably does (or should) play a small factor, or else one runs the risk of ending up with an 8-11 of Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins.

 

[kyear2]

This is a silly generalisation lol. I don't suppose Ashton Agar got picked for his last test for his bowling?

One player and 5 tests.

It's not silly if that's been a philosophy for which there seems to be a track record to support.

 

[ataraxia]

One player and 5 tests.

It's not silly if that's been a philosophy for which there seems to be a track record to support.

No, one player and one test. That's precisely what I'm taking issue about.

 

[Brook's side]

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

Obviously it's not why he was picked, but don't forget that Cummins' batting won Australia the 1st test last summer (and effectively the Ashes).
I don't think he's got enough credit for that tbh. Australia were pretty much gone in that game.