How many all-rounders would you have in your test and LOI XIs?

[Bolo.]

No it's not:

The point is that it doesn't "need" to affect selection. You can just pick your 6 best batsmen and your 4 best bowlers

You could pick your 2 best bowlers and 8 best bats. Being able to rotate is nice though, and should be a pretty serious consideration, particularly if selecting a team for a series/career rather than a one-off game. Fatigue and injuries happen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You could pick your 2 best bowlers and 8 best bats. Being able to rotate is nice though, and should be a pretty serious consideration, particularly if selecting a team for a series/career rather than a one-off game. Fatigue and injuries happen.

That's great, I'm specifically responding to the statement that you need to pick an all-rounder for a Test team. Not whether or not you might want one in a squad

 

[kyear2]

If this is true, that the skill level of a fifth bowler is not that critical, then surely a bowling allrounder is more important?

What is more likely, a fifth bowler helps to bowl out the opposition, or a stronger tail with a bowling all-rounder at 7/8 scores vital runs and gets to a better total?

The latter seems much more likely.

I honestly don't think either are. While a fifth bowler of varying capacity is always required and provides value just by bowling and providing rest and ease within the rotation, there's never a given that the no 8 will score runs.
Most victorious rear guard actions weren't perpetrated by tail enders of note. As noted I don't see the bowling all rounder position as being worth it's weight in gold and wouldn't even consider if it required any perceptible loss in bowling quality.
If it's an ATG scenario, I've said I'm happy with Marshall and Warne at 8 or 9, especially with the batting above them. If Bradman, Sobers and Sachin are legit struggling with the quality I don't see Gilly or Hadlee / Imran being that effective either.
In real life scenarios, Warne and especially Marshall often came in good situations and often had a go. In situations where a rescue job was required, they often performed better to match the need.

I need to be clear that I'm not saying in any universe they were better with the bat than the aforementioned duo, that doesn't track with reality, I'm saying that I'm comfortable with going with the best (imho) bowlers and Marshall and Warne at 8 and 9.

I find that, in a nameless scenario, that weakening your bowling for potential security runs is a negative and defensive position to take and more likely to cost a win, but avoid a loss. Go best bowlers and try to bowl out the opposition.

Really don't see it as a necessity, and if the batsmen do their job, even less so.

 

[Bolo.]

That's great, I'm specifically responding to the statement that you need to pick an all-rounder for a Test team. Not whether or not you might want one in a squad

I'm not talking about a squad. If you pick a single team to play together for 1/5/50 games together, you are going to burn out the bowlers to varying degrees If you have a limited number of bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

I honestly don't think either are. While a fifth bowler of varying capacity is always required and provides value just by bowling and providing rest and ease within the rotation, there's never a given that the no 8 will score runs.
Most victorious rear guard actions weren't perpetrated by tail enders of note. As noted I don't see the bowling all rounder position as being worth it's weight in gold and wouldn't even consider if it required any perceptible loss in bowling quality.
If it's an ATG scenario, I've said I'm happy with Marshall and Warne at 8 or 9, especially with the batting above them. If Bradman, Sobers and Sachin are legit struggling with the quality I don't see Gilly or Hadlee / Imran being that effective either.
In real life scenarios, Warne and especially Marshall often came in good situations and often had a go. In situations where a rescue job was required, they often performed better to match the need.

I need to be clear that I'm not saying in any universe they were better with the bat than the aforementioned duo, that doesn't track with reality, I'm saying that I'm comfortable with going with the best (imho) bowlers and Marshall and Warne at 8 and 9.

I find that, in a nameless scenario, that weakening your bowling for potential security runs is a negative and defensive position to take and more likely to cost a win, but avoid a loss. Go best bowlers and try to bowl out the opposition.

Really don't see it as a necessity, and if the batsmen do their job, even less so.

Yeah but according to you it doesn't even need a proper batting all-rounder to perform that function. Even a Tendulkar/Root level bowler can bowl a few loosening overs. You haven't explained how a batting all-rounder like Kallis as fifth bowler adds more then.

Whereas we all know that having the stronger tail and lower order depth does matter and a bowling all-rounder an averaging 28 with the bat gives you a definite edge.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not talking about a squad. If you pick a single team to play together for 1/5/50 games together, you are going to burn out the bowlers to varying degrees If you have a limited number of bowlers.

Which is why it's more critical to have a decent 5th option. He doesn't even have to take wickets just take up overs without being taken apart.
No such requirement for a bowling all rounder

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but according to you it doesn't even need a proper batting all-rounder to perform that function. Even a Tendulkar/Root level bowler can bowl a few loosening overs. You haven't explained how a batting all-rounder like Kallis as fifth bowler adds more then.

Whereas we all know that having the stronger tail and lower order depth does matter and a bowling all-rounder an averaging 28 with the bat gives you a definite edge.

A Kallis would have an even greater impact, don't understand the question. And again, you guys are the one with the all rounder label, I want versatility an extra option. Again, Hammond, Simpson, Chappell, Worrell wouldn't be deemed all rounders, but good enough for what's required.

And again, show me where, show me where one of those players lead to great teams or victories. A generous average of 15 to 20 extra runs an innings doesn't make up for having a better bowler who may present extra opportunities and bowl out the opposition for way less than that. Again, it's a negative / defensive decision.

I love American Football, one of my 4 favorite sports. The five most important positions are QB, DE, LT, WR, CB. It wasn't arbitrarily decided that those are the most important, they look at the teams that have won and what were the common factors for those squads. Yes running backs have more apparently stats, and yes a Barry Sanders or Derrick Henry would have improved any of those teams, but they still won, because even though the position is flashy and more causally evident, it lacks impact.
Similarly while it's easier to point to tangible numbers, he averages 30 with the bat instead of 18, show me where that's lead to tangible wins and impact.
I can say I've seen Gilly's innings win games, series, the aggression put the teams on the back foot.

Yes, the extra numbers look nice, but show me empirically where it's made that tangible difference. Great teams win when the batsmen takes care of business and the bowlers take wickets. In cricket the template has proven to be a good set of aggressive openers to set the tone, an ATG middle order bat leading a strong to great middle order and at least one ATG pacer and one really good second guy supported by a great cordon. That's how you win not only at home but on the road and have sustained excellence. It's aggression, it's winning.

And before the argument is restarted on if Imran / Hadlee would have made the teams better, of course, no one doubts that, anyone is taking them over Gillespie or Holding in a heart beat. But the Chiefs / Buccs would have also taken Christian McCaffrey, but managed to be dominant without.

So while the 28 looks good on paper over 17 or 18, the difference is minimal and potentially detrimental if you're going to sacrifice the superior bowler to get it.

We're looking at tangible numbers, not results and precedent. And that's because it's easier, we're stat based and easier to quantify, but I'll always maintain, that in a strong team it's so much more important to have a strong cordon that a deep tail. But no one looks at that because there are no stats and it's harder to research, harder to say but look at the average and potential. But watch Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Ambrose, Lillee even Hadlee (in a weaker team, that's all) so much success was because they had secure hands behind the batsmen.
You have said a bowling all rounder averaging 28 gives you an edge, imagine being in a tight matchup and dropping the opposing teams best batsman, and we don't have to because I've seen it before, we all have. Who didn't experience it nearly as often are those great teams that took those opportunities and also the half ones.

So finally, yes all 3 have their place and value. But the bowling all rounder falls last, even if you're a team that consistently relies on those few extra runs to avoid defeat, then honestly you have bigger problems and not that close to being competitive. Marshall and Warne also showed they could show up when required and tough it out.
The value of a cordon is that when the bowlers do their job, that they aren't let down, and even on rough decks that odd half chance can swing a game.
The value of the 5th bowler or bowling all rounder, if we assign the tag, is at its absolute lowest, to give the main guys a rest in tough conditions and allow them not to be worn out. At it's peak, taking the odd wicket and in the case of a Sobers or Kallis the odd 5 wicket haul and match winning performance. Even at it's absolute lowest it's an undeniable asset.
In a hypothetical (and not saying it has to be)choice between top end bowling all rounder or a top end batting all rounder, most will go with the batting because you're at best the 5th option and you're not going to weaken the batting facilitating that.

 

[subshakerz]

The value of the 5th bowler or bowling all rounder, if we assign the tag, is at its absolute lowest, to give the main guys a rest in tough conditions and allow them not to be worn out. At it's peak, taking the odd wicket and in the case of a Sobers or Kallis the odd 5 wicket haul and match winning performance. Even at it's absolute lowest it's an undeniable asset.
In a hypothetical (and not saying it has to be)choice between top end bowling all rounder or a top end batting all rounder, most will go with the batting because you're at best the 5th option and you're not going to weaken the batting facilitating that.

Yeah but here is where we disagree.

First, Sobers was fourth bowler level quality and a level ahead of Kallis. He definitely has a case over most if not all bowling all-rounders.

Second, Kallis as fifth bowler bowls an average of 10 overs an innings. He takes roughly 3 wickets every two games and even less without minnows. His impact is slightly more than a Tendulkar/Root in the case we are talking an ATG bowling lineup to just give the main guys a rest.

To me, a 28 averaging bat, without knowing anything about how weak the tail is, offers roughly the same value if not slightly more. Because we know the harm a weak tail has even in a strong lineup, as we saw with Australia in India recently where the lower order made the difference between the two sides.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but here is where we disagree.

First, Sobers was fourth bowler level quality and a level ahead of Kallis. He definitely has a case over most if not all bowling all-rounders.

Second, Kallis as fifth bowler bowls an average of 10 overs an innings. He takes roughly 3 wickets every two games and even less without minnows. His impact is slightly more than a Tendulkar/Root in the case we are talking an ATG bowling lineup to just give the main guys a rest.

To me, a 28 averaging bat, without knowing anything about how weak the tail is, offers roughly the same value if not slightly more. Because we know the harm a weak tail has even in a strong lineup, as we saw with Australia in India recently where the lower order made the difference between the two sides.

But the giving the guys a rest thing is the primary objective.

I hope this is received in the way it is intended. Playing in India is a bit like playing in the French Open right now and on top of thay playing Rafa or Guga before him.

Yes the tail made an impact but the main reason Australia lost is because their best batsman never showed up, their batting was fragile and their best bowler was neutralized. Think that was the difference between the teams.

But yes, it will happen at times, but can we agree that relying on your tail isn't the best or most reliable way to achieve victory.

And again, I will stress, all three positions have their roll to play.

 

[subshakerz]

But the giving the guys a rest thing is the primary objective.

I hope this is received in the way it is intended. Playing in India is a bit like playing in the French Open right now and on top of thay playing Rafa or Guga before him.

Yes the tail made an impact but the main reason Australia lost is because their best batsman never showed up, their batting was fragile and their best bowler was neutralized. Think that was the difference between the teams.

But yes, it will happen at times, but can we agree that relying on your tail isn't the best or most reliable way to achieve victory.

And again, I will stress, all three positions have their roll to play.

I think the gist is that in my cricket watching experience I have seen more teams lose due to a weak tail than a lack of a quality fifth bowler. In tests, that is. A quality fifth bowler is a luxury if he is capable of performing at a specialist level, which was the case with Jadeja/Ashwin and Indian pacers under Kohli when you had 5 specialist bowling options. Kallis isn't that good though.

Majority of the time, the fifth bowler of Kallis level won't be doing the long hard yards to make much of an impact outside of rest overs than can literally be done by any part timer.

Whereas a tail has to bat every innings. So those extra 15-35 runs a game may mean more than 20 overs and 1 wicket a game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not talking about a squad. If you pick a single team to play together for 1/5/50 games together, you are going to burn out the bowlers to varying degrees If you have a limited number of bowlers.

Clearly not. 2 of the best Test sides in history did not have an all rounder. Why do people keep forgetting this.

 

[trundler]

Clearly not. 2 of the best Test sides in history did not have an all rounder. Why do people keep forgetting this.

The Invincibles did though. 2-1 isn't exactly convincing. Australia had a bad third seamer and yet no one would argue a well rounded pace attack isn't important.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Invincibles did though. 2-1 isn't exactly convincing. Australia had a bad third seamer and yet no one would argue a well rounded pace attack isn't important.

Again, I'm not arguing against all-rounders. Literally just refuting the statement that they are essential, which is evidently wrong.

If you have a good enough all rounder that makes the team stronger of course you should pick them. If you don't, then you don't need to find one for the sake of it.

 

[The Sean]

Clearly not. 2 of the best Test sides in history did not have an all rounder. Why do people keep forgetting this.

Sure, we know that great sides don't need an all-rounder to be great, no disagreement with you there. But those two teams you refer to didn't have an all-rounder because there wasn't one of requisite quality to break into the side, not because they had one of that class and chose not to pick him.

Look, for example, at the Australian team we've talked about before which according to one study is the greatest XI ever to take the field for a Test match, against South Africa in Johannesburg in 2002:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Waugh, M
Waugh, S
Martyn
Gilchrist
Lee
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath

Are we seriously arguing that if Keith Miller were available for selection he doesn't walk into that team?

 

[The Sean]

Again, I'm not arguing against all-rounders. Literally just refuting the statement that they are essential, which is evidently wrong.

If you have a good enough all rounder that makes the team stronger of course you should pick them. If you don't, then you don't need to find one for the sake of it.

Ha, you can ignore my reply to you that I just posted. We are in complete agreement.

 

[kyear2]

Sure, we know that great sides don't need an all-rounder to be great, no disagreement with you there. But those two teams you refer to didn't have an all-rounder because there wasn't one of requisite quality to break into the side, not because they had one of that class and chose not to pick him.

Look, for example, at the Australian team we've talked about before which according to one study is the greatest XI ever to take the field for a Test match, against South Africa in Johannesburg in 2002:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Waugh, M
Waugh, S
Martyn
Gilchrist
Lee
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath

Are we seriously arguing that if Keith Miller were available for selection he doesn't walk into that team?

See that's the hypothetical, borderline strawman argument people are making. No one's saying they wouldn't have welcomed one, the fact is they managed to win without one. And not just win, but one of the two most dominant teams in history.

 

[trundler]

See that's the hypothetical, borderline strawman argument people are making. No one's saying they wouldn't have welcomed one, the fact is they managed to win without one. And not just win, but one of the two most dominant teams in history.

Again, I'm not arguing against all-rounders. Literally just refuting the statement that they are essential, which is evidently wrong.

If you have a good enough all rounder that makes the team stronger of course you should pick them. If you don't, then you don't need to find one for the sake of it.

Both of you completely missed my point about Australia not needing a third seamer either. You could make literally the same argument about that too. Doesn't prove much.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Both of you completely missed my point about Australia not needing a third seamer either. You could make literally the same argument about that too. Doesn't prove much.

I didn't miss your point it just didn't have anything to do with my point

 

[kyear2]

The Invincibles did though. 2-1 isn't exactly convincing. Australia had a bad third seamer and yet no one would argue a well rounded pace attack isn't important.

As great as they were, their period of dominance was a bit shorter than the others

 

[kyear2]

Both of you completely missed my point about Australia not needing a third seamer either. You could make literally the same argument about that too. Doesn't prove much.

As I said earlier, while the Invincibles were great, their period of dominance wasn't as long it impressive as the other 2 great teams.