This was totally my final message. I didn't post anything afterwards sharing my cricket statistical modeling obsessions. Nothing to see here.If it's for "the world", all you'd need to do is play him this clip, and after seeing it he'd have all the motivation he needs:
I've looked at a lot of player career histories / batting filters ( I swear I have a life), and the more I've done so the more I realize there are quite a lot of examples of players actually playing this way "out of position" for their Test teams. Allan Border, for example, played a big chunk of his career as low as the 6 position, and it's not like he had a lot of batting competition pushing him out of his favored slots.Having said all that the down right bad decision in your selection is having Miandad bat at 7. Absolutely useless there. No batsman of that style (accumulator)/ caliber (long innings champ) should bat that low in any test team.
he batted at no.7 once out of 189 innings. I don't know why you are making that assumption without any proofFYI Bagapath is the batting position police. He is an extremist when it comes to refusing to allow anyone to "bat out of position".
Virtually any team in history would love to have Miandad batting at 7, unless you have a freakish alternative like Gilchrist
Haha nothing could have backed up his post more than this replyhe batted at no.7 once out of 189 innings. I don't know why you are making that assumption without any proof
I know your stance on this concept so I'm not surprised, nor do I think your mind will change, but I mean it's common sense. Bradman probably didn't bat much at no. 7 either but he's obviously still going to be better there than anyone else in history. Or in literally any other batting positionhe batted at no.7 once out of 189 innings. I don't know why you are making that assumption without any proof
I am happy to concede that I am probably a batting position police; and the spread sheet proves that.TJB: Bagapath is the batting position police.
Bagapath: Miandad didn't bat #7 much, you can't assume anything about how good he'd be at batting there.
PEWS: You just proved his point.
Bagapath: *continues to prove his point, this time with spreadsheets*
Bradman would do well at no. 11 too. is that what a team needs from him? more precisely, is that where you get the best out of him?I know your stance on this concept so I'm not surprised, nor do I think your mind will change, but I mean it's common sense. Bradman probably didn't bat much at no. 7 either but he's obviously still going to be better there than anyone else in history. Or in literally any other batting position
If the alternative is him not playing at all, then I'd probably take it.Bradman would do well at no. 11 too. is that what a team needs from him?
if you are going to find an alternative for him at no 3 and move him to no 11, then your team selection is totally flawedIf the alternative is him not playing at all, then I'd probably take it.
That wasn't the context of the discussion though was it? You said:if you are going to find an alternative for him at no 3 and move him to no 11, then your team selection is totally flawed
He's not useless there. In fact he's probably better there than any regular no.7 in Test history other than GilchristHaving said all that the down right bad decision in your selection is having Miandad bat at 7. Absolutely useless there. No batsman of that style (accumulator)/ caliber (long innings champ) should bat that low in any test team.
Yeah, that is my argument.That wasn't the context of the discussion though was it? You said:
He's not useless there. In fact he's probably better there than any regular no.7 in Test history other than Gilchrist
Now if you want to argue that Miandad at 7 is bad selection because he should bat higher and you can make a stronger team by shuffling the order then sure, I'll agree with you. I just don't think there's any truth to the idea that a batsman of Miandad's style wouldn't do a great job at no. 7 if that's what would make the best team given other players available.