The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smash84]

Having said that, I don't think we have enough respect for specialist stock bowlers in the modern game. Would England have been as good as they were had they not had Giles in the team? Swann was a better bowler than Giles, sure. However, how Giles played his part in the team and fitted in the team like a nut in a bolt. Yet, in 50 years time, not many will remember Ashley Giles.

Do you remember Tim May fitting into the Aus team like a nut in a bolt? Of course not, that is because he wasn't such a great bowler to begin with. And do you remember Shane Warne? Of course you do, That's because he was a better bowler

 

[Flem274*]

NZ since 2000
Richardson, McCullum, Williamson, Taylor, Fleming, Cairns, Watling, Vettori, Southee, Bond, Boult

SA since 2000
Smith, Kirsten, Amla, Kallis, AB, Gibbs, Boucher, Pollock, Philander, Steyn, Donald

Aus since 2000
Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Waugh S, Gilchrist, Warne, Harris, Gillespie, McGrath

Eng since 2000
Cook, Strauss, Trott, KP, Thorpe, Bell, Prior, Swann, Broad, Gough, Anderson

WI since 2000
Gayle, Edwards/Brathwaite, Lara, Bravo Jnr, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Ramdin, Taylor, Collins, Roach, Edwards

will do more later

 

[watson]

I would compare Marshall with his contemporaries as regards to the Strike Rates. The srike rate of Marshall being 10% lower than other bowlers who are all time absolute great fast bowlers is quite exceptional. In terms of fast bowlers, how fast one can take wickets significantly affects their effectiveness. Dale Steyn has a great average but the strike rate is so great, it means you are going to get out sooner rather than latter to these bowlers.

Re Waqar: His SR is so low because for a period, around a third of his career, he was unplayable. For that third of his career, there can be a reasonable argument formed that he was the greatest any one has ever been.

In winning a Test match it really doesn't matter too much when Marshall takes his wickets. For example, if Marshall and Ambrose do one better than Laker and hypothetically take all 20 wickets for their respective teams during a Test match then Marshall's team will beat Ambrose's team by one run every time - if we assume that they achieve their life-time bowling averages and rain doesn't interrupt the Test match;

Ambrose Average = 20.99 runs per wicket
Marshall Average = 20.94 runs per wicket

Marshall's team: 20.99 x 20 = 419.8 runs
Ambrose's team: 20.94 x 20 = 418.8 runs

What this all means of course is that there is very little discernible difference between the 'gold tier' ATG bowlers, and peoples preference for one particular bowler over another is largely determined by emotional factors.

 

[smash84]

In winning a Test match it really doesn't matter too much when Marshall takes his wickets. For example, if Marshall and Ambrose do one better than Laker and hypothetically take all 20 wickets for their respective teams during a Test match then Marshall's team will beat Ambrose's team by one run every time - if we assume that they achieve their life-time bowling averages and rain doesn't interrupt the Test match;

Ambrose Average = 20.99 runs per wicket
Marshall Average = 20.94 runs per wicket

Marshall's team: 20.99 x 20 = 419.8 runs
Ambrose's team: 20.94 x 20 = 418.8 runs

What this all means of course is that there is very little discernible difference between the 'gold tier' ATG bowlers, and peoples preference for one particular bowler over another is largely determined by emotional factors.

No, it means that people's preferences also depend on having watched them play. Not just reading up on their stats.

 

[watson]

No, it means that people's preferences also depend on having watched them play. Not just reading up on their stats.

You obviously didn't read my post Smali

 

[kyear2]

In winning a Test match it really doesn't matter too much when Marshall takes his wickets. For example, if Marshall and Ambrose do one better than Laker and hypothetically take all 20 wickets for their respective teams during a Test match then Marshall's team will beat Ambrose's team by one run every time - if we assume that they achieve their life-time bowling averages and rain doesn't interrupt the Test match;

Ambrose Average = 20.99 runs per wicket
Marshall Average = 20.94 runs per wicket

Marshall's team: 20.99 x 20 = 419.8 runs
Ambrose's team: 20.94 x 20 = 418.8 runs

What this all means of course is that there is very little discernible difference between the 'gold tier' ATG bowlers, and peoples preference for one particular bowler over another is largely determined by emotional factors.

You also choose the two bowlers with the closest averages. Additionally any further investigation shows that Marshall not only struck faster, but had a higher WPM and a higher percentage of 5 Wicket hauls per match. Marshall was the better player and match winner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, but a SR of 90 is just plain awful. His SR against Pakistan is even worse, something like 350 balls per wicket or something. Beggars belief

It's because of matches like this 1st Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Karachi, Feb 20-25, 1959 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo where he was asked to tie up an end for a quarter of the innings firing in balls at leg stump to restrict the scoring. Whether it was great tactics is open to debate, but it was what he was asked to do and 45 runs conceded in 40 overs suggests he did it well.

 

[Coronis]

Aus since 2000
Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Waugh S, Gilchrist, Warne, Harris, Gillespie, McGrath

No way Martyn is over Hussey. Might even have Johnson over Harris, but thats debateable.

 

[andmark]

The thing with Johnson is that it's only recently that he's actually been half decent. Can always remember the English chant is 2009 and 2011 of "He bowls them wide; he bowls them high;Mitchell Johnson, his bowling is ****e". Wasn't far off the mark

 

[smash84]

awta. People tend to forget the many many erratic days of mitchell johnson

 

[smash84]

It's because of matches like this 1st Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Karachi, Feb 20-25, 1959 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo where he was asked to tie up an end for a quarter of the innings firing in balls at leg stump to restrict the scoring. Whether it was great tactics is open to debate, but it was what he was asked to do and 45 runs conceded in 40 overs suggests he did it well.

That Scorecard doesn't explain much tbf. I'll take your word for it if you followed that match, but pretty much all WI bowlers have an ER of less than 2 or 2 in the innings except Lance Gibbs. That doesn''t make too special.

 

[watson]

awta. People tend to forget the many many erratic days of mitchell johnson

You could also argue that England were already beaten before Mitchell Johnson bowled a ball in the 2013/14 Ashes series - his best series to date.

 

[smash84]

How is that relevant to what i am saying?

 

[watson]

How is that relevant to what i am saying?

Isn't it obvious?

 

[smash84]

Are you saying that his awesomeness cancels out his crapness?

 

[watson]

Are you saying that his awesomeness cancels out his crapness?

No, not even close.

 

[Red]

'Test matches are won by whoever scores the most runs while taking 20 wickets'.

If you just take that simple definition then runs conceded per wicket taken is the most important factor. That is, if the batsman score more runs than the opposition and the bowlers take 20 wickets during the 5 days then what does it matter what the ER or the SR are? It's not as if the team gets bonus points for keeping the keeping the opposing run rate down.

The bowlers SR is important because Test matches have a finite time and time is an important consideration, but ultimately only runs and wickets matter.

The point is that bowlers with better SRs give your team longer (and therefore more chance) of winning a test.

 

[smash84]

The point is that bowlers with better SRs give your team longer (and therefore more chance) of winning a test.

yeah but at atg level bowlers the SR usually doesn't come into play. It isn't like you are comparing Marshall's SR of 47 to somebody with a SR of 90. Ambrose has a SR of 54. That's not very significant.

 

[kyear2]

How is that not significant.

 

[smash84]

How is that not significant.

ugh. Kyear2. We'll take this one point at a time. So perhaps you'll get it. Answer my questions.

Marshall takes a wicket approximately every 8 overs. Yes?