Help me figure out who the No. 5 in my AT XI should be (Richards vs Others)

[Johan]

Garner would bowl a good length delivery and it would bounce like a bouncer, he doesn't need bouncers

 

[kyear2]

Garner would bowl a good length delivery and it would bounce like a bouncer, he doesn't need bouncers

I honestly found the question to be somewhat........... Prejudiced is the best world I can come up with at the moment.

 

[Johan]

I honestly found the question to be somewhat........... Prejudiced is the best world I can come up with at the moment.

I think there is a lot of subtle Prejudice in how cricketting fans of different nations discuss cricketers from different nations with different race and so forth, going from inferiority complex sometimes to stereotyping the fearsome four as bouncer abusing brutes, I've no doubt the question from DrWolverine was just genuine tho as he seems like a chill individual but sometimes the vibe of the question is wrong and it's hard to pick where.

 

[DrWolverine]

I've no doubt the question from DrWolverine was just genuine tho as he seems like a chill individual but sometimes the vibe of the question is wrong and it's hard to pick where.

I don’t understand why the question was wrong.

 

[Johan]

I don’t understand why the question was wrong.

not wrong, just that I think it'd sound better if you extended it to every 70s/80s pacer, I'm not questioning your intention at all.

 

[kyear2]

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Gary Sobers
Imran Khan
Adam Gilchrist
Richard Hadlee
Malcom Marshall
Glen McGrath
Muttiah Muralitharan

1. Bowlers win Test matches. I would definitely want to have Imran Khan who is one of the best ever.
2. I already have Don Bradman(as well as Imran/Hadlee/Gilly) in the team so he would compensate for not having a 6th specialist batsman.

I was thinking about this team while watching this ongoing test series and especially the last match.

The idiotic notion that India seems to possess that somehow the sheer number of all rounders can make up for quality front line batsmen, is one of the many confounding selection decisions that they seem to be stuck on.


The other equally questionable philosophy being that you use your bowling slots to shore up ones batting was one that I've often argued with @capt_Luffy about. Having a no 7 / 8 that they have no faith in to bowl, because you need batting depth, or selecting inferior spinners because they can bat, is confounding. To then wonder why your strike bowler is being worn down from lack of support, is subsequently hilarious.

Years I've said, that to say your batting is struggling, so let's change my no. 8, is the height of "rearranging the furniture while the house is burning down". And yes, while lower order batting can be extremely valuable, it can't be the primary basis of selection for your attack.

Anyways, it popped into my mind why no one selects teams like this.

 

[DrWolverine]

I am applying it to every pacer who played before proper protective equipment and helmets.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t understand why the question was wrong.

It's not wrong.

It does however falls into a well crafted and pushed stereotype.

My issue lies more with the premise than the author.

 

[Johan]

It's not wrong.

It does however falls into a well crafted and pushed stereotype.

My issue lies more with the premise than the author.

Yeah this, Windies pacers being brutes who spam short ball has been a stereotype since Herman Griffith and Learie Constantine in 1929.

even tho Miller and Lindwall used the same tactic on three Ws in 1950s lmao

 

[DrWolverine]

I was thinking about this team while watching this ongoing test series and especially the last match.

Bowlers wins Test matches.

I believe having 5 proper batsmen including Don Bradman and Adam Gilchrist is enough.

Four ATG pacers(Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Imran) and Murali is enough to dismiss any opposition for me

 

[Johan]

I am applying it to every pacer who played before proper protective equipment and helmets.

Fair

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah this, Windies pacers being brutes who spam short ball has been a stereotype since Herman Griffith and Learie Constantine in 1929.

I am applying to every express pacer, not just the ones from WI. If Shoaib was born 2-3 decades before, he would have been the most dangerous bowler ever

 

[Johan]

I am applying to every express pacer, not just the ones from WI. If Shoaib was born 2-3 decades before, he would have been the most dangerous bowler ever

I'm actively saying I agree the question was genuine, and on the second part

Eh I don't really agree, Shoaib's problem was constantly falling apart due to injuries and I don't think he was faster than Thompson (about even I reckon), He'd be up there for the most dangerous ever tho.

 

[sayon basak]

Eh I don't really agree, Shoaib's problem was constantly falling apart due to injuries and I don't think he was faster than Thompson (about even I reckon), He'd be up there for the most dangerous ever tho.

Also, he wasn't very accurate on his off days.

 

[DrWolverine]

Also, he wasn't very accurate on his off days.

That’s what makes him dangerous since even he doesn’t know where the ball is going to go and land

 

[kyear2]

I am applying it to every pacer who played before proper protective equipment and helmets.

That's the 60's and 70's then.

 

[sayon basak]

That’s what makes him dangerous since even he doesn’t know where the ball is going to go and land

At 0:31

 

[kyear2]

Bowlers wins Test matches.

I believe having 5 proper batsmen including Don Bradman and Adam Gilchrist is enough.

Four ATG pacers(Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Imran) and Murali is enough to dismiss any opposition for me

Shortening spells to accommodate more bowlers delivers significantly diminishing returns. Definely not worth playing a batsman short and for another reason.

And speaking of said reason, how and where did McGrath and Hadlee taken the vast majority of their wickets? Where did Marshall take about half of his?

The keeper and slip cordon. How many specialist, far less great slip fielders are in your team? One.
You stick a team full of fast bowlers who took most of their scalps caught behind the wicket, all had peerless cordons (most of us can easily name the gentleman than made up each) and then give them none here. Guys like Lillee, Lindwall, the WI battery, McGrath, Steyn, Hadlee etc relied and depended on the brilliance of their cordons. Simpson was even drafted into the Aussie team because too many catches were going down and they needed the support to get the best out of their 3 greats.

Let's go even further. What has been one of the main determinators for success in this ongoing series? When Australia held their catches, they win. When Khawaja dropped Jaiswal, and when Smith dropped K.L, they lost or drew the matches.

The two catches held by Smith in the last contest were not only brilliant (Khawaja isn't catching either), but in such a closely contested match, both were critical.

So yeah, short batting (6 is a spot too high for Gilly at this level), long tail, and outside of Sobers (and Hadlee at gully when not bowling, and even then..), no catching support. There's a reason Warne is a much more popular choice in these exercises, he wasn't great, but he's useable (though arguably not at this level) at 1, and can bat, while being every bit equally as good with the ball. Richards, while being the best ever batter vs pace, was nothing short of brilliant at 3rd slip, and everywhere else in the outfield for that matter.

So while you're stacking the attack, you're not giving them the support they would require.

 

[kyear2]

At 0:31

There's a skill to bowling well at pace. Otherwise you're Patterson or Malcolm.