The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[trundler]

On helpful wickets Murali was evidently more lethal and on unhelpful ones I'll have the other 3 cover for him.

Imran + Murali (possibly with Shakoor Rana as umpire) i Asia would be devastating.

 

[honestbharani]

In an attack of:

Sobers, Imran, Hadlee and Marshall, would it make more sense to play Warne or Murali?

Imran is more hot and cold than other great bowlers, and not as good in challenging conditions. Which one of these two covers this shortfall better?

Both were rubbish against really strong batting lineups in unhelpful conditions (vs India or AUS in India and AUS). What type of wicket would one have an advantage on over the other, particularly if it is one that the quicks would struggle on (Warne would probably be better suited to tracks that offer bounce but not that much turn for example, but the quicks will play a bigger role anyway).

I always try to fit in Warne in any AT side if I am picking one of Warne or Murali purely for theatre and the fact that I enjoyed watching Warne bowl more than Murali (although I do think Murali is the better bowler) but given that line up and the fact that they all "can bat", I would pick Murali. Of course, it also helps if you have Sachin (or even Steve Smith) in your batting line up just to ensure you got some leg spin covered too.

 

[trundler]

I don't think Sobers was that good a leggie at test level but it adds to the novelty and legend. Still, with him as fifth bowler you really wouldn't need a part timer. Guy bowled 38 overs or so per match!

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I wonder if Sobers ever bowled different styles of bowling during the match....Say like he start his first spell with spin...and then seeing no help from the pitch decided to bowl some seamers (or the other way around)

 

[Coronis]

I wonder if Sobers ever bowled different styles of bowling during the match....Say like he start his first spell with spin...and then seeing no help from the pitch decided to bowl some seamers (or the other way around)

iirc I remember reading a story about him doing this from Pollock.

 

[Bolo]

Sobers wouldn't factor into it too heavily. He would get the occasional chance to bowl pace at the top if the new ball kept swinging for a long time, but I obviously want the others bowling as much as possible. Other than that, hes mostly there to keep it tight and give the others a break, but I don't want him bowling much.

Was Murali better in Asia? His record in Lanka is untouchable, but that is a home game for him, and Warne did really well there too.

I'd probably trust Murali more on a dustbowl, but Imran has that covered anyway. In something slow and grassy Imran would probably be a liability. Murali might be better if there was a fair amount of turn.

Outside of Asia the quicks will mostly do the job. The batting depth will be a huge advantage in spicy conditions because an ATG batting unit is going to collapse against an ATG bowling unit and the tail will need to do a rescue job against the older ball, so this is somewhat covered. Flatter pitches are more of a concern. Warne was good in AUS and bad in WI. Not so sure what to make of this.

 

[Starfighter]

I wonder if Sobers ever bowled different styles of bowling during the match....Say like he start his first spell with spin...and then seeing no help from the pitch decided to bowl some seamers (or the other way around)

All the time actually.

 

[stephen]

Warne being "bad" in the WI is a lot to do with the timing of the tours. He was particularly ineffective in 1999 when he was rushed back from shoulder surgery.

Warne or Murali won't make a huge difference with the ball anywhere but Australia. And if Warne/Murali is batting at 10 or 11 their batting is not going to make much of a difference.

If I could guarantee we're getting a 1993-1997 or 2004-2007 Warne I'd take Warne. If not is take Murali because there's a risk you could be left with the medium pace trundler Imran and the shoulder-busted 1999 Warne.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne being "bad" in the WI is a lot to do with the timing of the tours. He was particularly ineffective in 1999 when he was rushed back from shoulder surgery.

Warne or Murali won't make a huge difference with the ball anywhere but Australia. And if Warne/Murali is batting at 10 or 11 their batting is not going to make much of a difference.

If I could guarantee we're getting a 1993-1997 or 2004-2007 Warne I'd take Warne. If not is take Murali because there's a risk you could be left with the medium pace trundler Imran and the shoulder-busted 1999 Warne.

In Tests Warne's batting (and to a lesser extent fielding) becomes more of a factor. In ODIs though batting difference between Warne & Murali is almost meaningless IMO.

 

[stephen]

In Tests Warne's batting (and to a lesser extent fielding) becomes more of a factor. In ODIs though batting difference between Warne & Murali is almost meaningless IMO.

You made a good point that in ODIs Hogg might be about the best available spinner if you have McGrath and Garner in your XI. Hogg/Akram/Garner/McGrath gives you both a solid tail and a very high quality attack. Any of Murali, Saqlain and Warne isn't going to make for a good number 9.

 

[stephen]

The other options for spinners of high quality who can hold a bat in ODIs are basically Rashid Khan and Shakib. The rest either average over 30 with the ball or under 20 with the bat (most are under 15).

 

[TheJediBrah]

You made a good point that in ODIs Hogg might be about the best available spinner if you have McGrath and Garner in your XI. Hogg/Akram/Garner/McGrath gives you both a solid tail and a very high quality attack. Any of Murali, Saqlain and Warne isn't going to make for a good number 9.

ftr I wasn't saying that Brad Hogg should be in an all time ODI XI lol, just that I'd consider him ahead of Warne

I also wasn't saying that Murali and Warne are of similar ODI batting ability, Warne is much better, I'm saying that the difference is effectively meaningless because they're not in the team to bat

The other options for spinners of high quality who can hold a bat in ODIs are basically Rashid Khan and Shakib. The rest either average over 30 with the ball or under 20 with the bat (most are under 15).

You don't need one that can bat though, depending on the rest of your team. For a no. 9 in ODIs, batting ability is of negligible importance compared to the bowling. History shows that no. 9s generally do **** all batting, but you'll usually be bowling 10 overs a game. I'd pick someone who is only a slightly better bowler over someone who can bat a lot better.

 

[stephen]

A number 9 bats in 61% of innings. In the whole of cricketing history, the number 9 in an ODI on average contributes 9 runs at an average of 13 @73. This works out at 12 balls per innings.

In the last five years that's risen to 9.5 rpi at an average of 14 @80.

A number 8 bats in 71% of innings. The average number 8 contributes 13 runs at an average of 17 @77. This works out to 16 balls per innings (2.4 overs) that the number 8 faces.

In the last 5 years that goes up to 14 runs per innings at an average of 19 @87.

The English team with their #batdeep philosophy has over the last 3 years seen their number 8 bat in 62% of innings, score 20 rpi at an average of 29 @99. The number 8 faced an average of 20 balls per innings.

The number 9 for England has batted in 44% of innings and scored 12 rpi at an average of 18 @98. The number 9 faces on average 13 balls per innings.

Take what you will out of those stats. The English ones are there to look at an ATG quality side (regardless of whether they've won a WC yet or not, their batting has been at ATG standard over the last 3 years).

It does appear that the better quality a batting side, the less likely it is for that side to need their numbers 8 and 9. But even the English side of the last three years has needed their number 9 to bat 44% off the time, and when they did they've faced an average of 2.1 overs.

If the 8 and 9 bat, which they do a majority of the time, they face over 2 overs each. That means they face around 9% of an innings.

The 8 and 9 are going to bowl 20% off the overs so their bowling is roughly 5 times more valuable than their batting.

So if Murali averages 23 and Hogg averages 27, Hogg is 16% worse with the ball than Murali. To be a more valuable player than Murali, Hogg would therefore need to be 8 roughly times better with the bat than Murali when you factor in the amount of batting Hogg is likely to do.

So you're correct, picking the last 4 (and possibly 5) bowlers based on their batting isn't as important as picking the best bowlers available.

This is a pretty simplistic analysis which doesn't take any player psychology into account but it does seem that teams should be picking more high quality bowlers if they are available, regardless of how bad they are with the bat.

 

[Bolo]

Warne being "bad" in the WI is a lot to do with the timing of the tours. He was particularly ineffective in 1999 when he was rushed back from shoulder surgery.

Warne or Murali won't make a huge difference with the ball anywhere but Australia. And if Warne/Murali is batting at 10 or 11 their batting is not going to make much of a difference.

If I could guarantee we're getting a 1993-1997 or 2004-2007 Warne I'd take Warne. If not is take Murali because there's a risk you could be left with the medium pace trundler Imran and the shoulder-busted 1999 Warne.

The consistency argument with Imran seems like it might be more meaningful than the pitches. Murali started a bit slow, but considering how many years he played for, he was pretty good in this regard. Warne a bit more up and down, including missing a lot of games.

 

[Bolo]

A number 9 bats in 61% of innings. In the whole of cricketing history, the number 9 in an ODI on average contributes 9 runs at an average of 13 @73. This works out at 12 balls per innings.

In the last five years that's risen to 9.5 rpi at an average of 14 @80.

A number 8 bats in 71% of innings. The average number 8 contributes 13 runs at an average of 17 @77. This works out to 16 balls per innings (2.4 overs) that the number 8 faces.

In the last 5 years that goes up to 14 runs per innings at an average of 19 @87.

The English team with their #batdeep philosophy has over the last 3 years seen their number 8 bat in 62% of innings, score 20 rpi at an average of 29 @99. The number 8 faced an average of 20 balls per innings.

The number 9 for England has batted in 44% of innings and scored 12 rpi at an average of 18 @98. The number 9 faces on average 13 balls per innings.

Take what you will out of those stats. The English ones are there to look at an ATG quality side (regardless of whether they've won a WC yet or not, their batting has been at ATG standard over the last 3 years).

It does appear that the better quality a batting side, the less likely it is for that side to need their numbers 8 and 9. But even the English side of the last three years has needed their number 9 to bat 44% off the time, and when they did they've faced an average of 2.1 overs.

If the 8 and 9 bat, which they do a majority of the time, they face over 2 overs each. That means they face around 9% of an innings.

The 8 and 9 are going to bowl 20% off the overs so their bowling is roughly 5 times more valuable than their batting.

So if Murali averages 23 and Hogg averages 27, Hogg is 16% worse with the ball than Murali. To be a more valuable player than Murali, Hogg would therefore need to be 8 roughly times better with the bat than Murali when you factor in the amount of batting Hogg is likely to do.

So you're correct, picking the last 4 (and possibly 5) bowlers based on their batting isn't as important as picking the best bowlers available.

This is a pretty simplistic analysis which doesn't take any player psychology into account but it does seem that teams should be picking more high quality bowlers if they are available, regardless of how bad they are with the bat.

The batting calculation doesn't really work this way. If your tail doesn't bat, it is because they don't need to. So we need to consider only the innings they have batted in. But we can't just look at RPI. A number 11 with an average of 10 might score 5 RPI. But a better 11 would increase the expected RPI of the batsmen at the other end, and by a greater extent than this 5 because he is a better batsman. The difference between Chris Martin and a typical number 11 is maybe 3 RPI, but it should be around 10 partnership runs. You should theoretically add more RPI to the team total when it counts as a tailender than the difference between your RPI and average.

This doesn't take draws into account though. You always need the extra wickets. Because my lineup is notably stonger on batting than bowling, I don't give Warne his full credit on batting ability relative to Murali in this lineup- I'm probably going to see a number of draws. But he does typically deserve it. I consider Murali a better bowler, but feel that the difference is made up by the batting in a normal team.

 

[trundler]

So talk of could-have-been's popped up in DoG's ranking thread and I thought it didn't merit an entirely new thread so here we are.
Reid-McDermott-McGrath-Warne has to be the greatest such bowling attack.

 

[Red]

Yeh, sadly McGrath and Reid never got the chance to play together. I've always thought that if Bruce Reid's body had been more durable, and he'd managed 50 or more tests, he'd be remembered as a clear ATG. He was a very very good bowler.

Would have been epic if a fit Reid and McGrath had played 3 or 4 seasons together. And you're right, at that time McDermott was as good as anyone in the world for a couple of years.

 

[morgieb]

So talk of could-have-been's popped up in DoG's ranking thread and I thought it didn't merit an entirely new thread so here we are.
Reid-McDermott-McGrath-Warne has to be the greatest such bowling attack.

Yeah that would've been nuts.

The alternate history that would've been ITSTL is Johnson and Lee swapping careers. Johnson was never all that great when he was "the guy", but his record with Harris is quite remarkable from memory. He would've been an absolute freak as the 3rd bowler behind McWarne.

Lee OTOH seemed to thrive as the guy, he was largely pretty poor as the shock bowler. His best period came immediately after McWarne retired, him bowling like that all the time (and I think he does if he was the main strike bowler) would've been a star. Instead his career looks pretty meh.

Obviously it would've been impossible, but whatever.

 

[trundler]

Well Bichel definitely deserved more tests than he got. Strong chance he would've been better than Lee.

 

[morgieb]

Well Bichel definitely deserved more tests than he got. Strong chance he would've been better than Lee.

He would've been better than Lee in that 2001-04 period, for sure. Don't think he had a series like Lee's 07/08 India series in him though.