The long tail conundrum...

[Prince EWS]

This but unironically

If anything it's the opposite.

 

[kyear2]

When we discuss players like the one's being discussed, it's almost seen as disrespectful when we don't name them in the first team, but anyone who hits either of the top 2 are legit gods of the sport.

For me yes, there's probably an inner sanctum, a pantheon if you will, but no one's say Hadlee was anything less than superb and a top 3 bowler of all time

 

[Bolo.]

I made a generalized statement, not within any context.

But to answer your question, I'm sure to most not.

I just have a preference for one over the other? And nothing says all two can't make it.

Actually according to the last poll, that was the preference.

Using a poll that you made (in which you picked the options according to your preferred choices) as evidence that people agree with with choices you are defending is extremely disingenuous.

That said, there's a good chance they would be generally preferred, even with a more honest range of options. But your poll tells us nothing about whether this is true.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I made a generalized statement, not within any context.

But to answer your question, I'm sure to most not.

I just have a preference for one over the other? And nothing says all two can't make it.

Actually according to the last poll, that was the preference.

I don't think just taking the best 3 pacers you have without any care for combinations, when you literally can take anyone is the way to go. Yes, Imran or Steyn are a bit inferior to those 3, but those 3 are all new ball specialists, i.e., there effectiveness will reduce on not getting to bowl with the new ball. On bowling first change, someone with reverse swing is more ideal.

 

[kyear2]

Using a poll that you made (in which you picked the options according to your preferred choices) as evidence that people agree with with choices you are defending is extremely disingenuous.

That said, there's a good chance they would be generally preferred, even with a more honest range of options. But your poll tells us nothing about whether this is true.

Make your own to prove what ever point you want to.

My poll was based on voting for the the last 3 ATG teams selected by the forum (please feel free to check for yourself), the recent voting for the top bowlers and various other polls and threads.

Marshall was a unanimous choice the last time we voted for an AT XI, and McGrath has consistently been chosen as his running mate. Warne was just selected to not dilute the vote.

The option you wanted added was one that's never been chosen by the forum, never been selected by any publication, website, journalist, former player, tv personality etc etc etc...

Your notion of selecting an entire attack based on batting is just as unpopular, if not more so than mine of mostly just factoring in bowling. You want to omit the 2nd (and two other) best bowler, not to mention one who compliments the other guy perfectly, because he didn't bat well enough.

That's not even getting onto 3 pacers from the same era.

So respectfully your complaints are unfounded, unmerited, and not based on any precedent.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think just taking the best 3 pacers you have without any care for combinations, when you literally can take anyone is the way to go. Yes, Imran or Steyn are a bit inferior to those 3, but those 3 are all new ball specialists, i.e., there effectiveness will reduce on not getting to bowl with the new ball. On bowling first change, someone with reverse swing is more ideal.

I gave this some thought... Marshall, Hadlee and Imran all played in the same era, and they were both better than he was. Hadlee literally bowled at all stages of the innings and was still more effective than Imran without Imran.

Also, the ball in recent times and in any scenario wouldn't be prepped for reverse as quickly as it did back in the day... So conventional swing and other tools will be just as, if not more critical, for longer. This also doesn't mention that Imran also was a new ball bowler. All of them had to bowl with the new ball and come back to bowl with the older rock. McGrath had an unmatched record and success with Warne, Marshall was also effective throughout the innings and Hadlee was more accustomed than any of them to marathon spells.

Not that's he's my personal choice, but I can't see an argument to it not being the best. And you still get your batting.

Three best bowlers ever, batting down to no. 10 accompanied by a strong no. 8 and you get pace, seam, swing, intimidation and metronomic precision

 

[capt_Luffy]

I gave this some thought... Marshall, Hadlee and Imran all played in the same era, and they were both better than he was. Hadlee literally bowled at all stages of the innings and was still more effective than Imran without Imran.

Also, the ball in recent times and in any scenario wouldn't be prepped for reverse as quickly as it did back in the day... So conventional swing and other tools will be just as, if not more critical, for longer. This also doesn't mention that Imran also was a new ball bowler. All of them had to bowl with the new ball and come back to bowl with the older rock. McGrath had an unmatched record and success with Warne, Marshall was also effective throughout the innings and Hadlee was more accustomed than any of them to marathon spells.

Not that's he's my personal choice, but I can't see an argument to it not being the best. And you still get your batting.

Three best bowlers ever, batting down to no. 10 accompanied by a strong no. 8 and you get pace, seam, swing, intimidation and metronomic precision

Not totally true. In fact in Marshall's peak, Imran was arguably even better. Imran's best weapon was reverse swing and he was able to use it anywhere and worked best with the old ball. The others hardly ever bowled first change. After 40 overs the ball is going to get old. The ball probably doesn't reverses as much any more but bowlers like Shami still uses it as a deadly weapon. Taking Imran gives the attack some much needed variety.

 

[kyear2]

Not totally true. In fact in Marshall's peak, Imran was arguably even better. Imran's best weapon was reverse swing and he was able to use it anywhere and worked best with the old ball. The others hardly ever bowled first change. After 40 overs the ball is going to get old. The ball probably doesn't reverses as much any more but bowlers like Shami still uses it as a deadly weapon. Taking Imran gives the attack some much needed variety.

It also undeniably worked considerably better at home...

I would also like to see anywhere where you can show me where Imran was contemporaneously rated as the best bowler of the era.

I also don't deny the variety aspect, but was it more effective? Hadlee bowled just as much in the middle innings, he had to, and ended up with the better record.

Imran was a brilliant cricketer and a valid choice, and I said this to Subz multiple times, if I thought he was as good a bowler as he did, this would be a no brainer.

Just too many astrix and questions.

Up to this morning I was thinking, without the tampering, would he have reversed it as well or as much, and I recalled the famous interview when he stated that even with the ball in that condition, no one else on the team got the same results. But he did...

And why the disparity of the home and away record, all the other questions that are everywhere on the interwebs.

As I said, without the questions, he's as much a lock as anyone to make everyone's all time teams. He just never has been.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Imrans away record doesn’t really matter since he was an ATG flat pitch bowler. Away records matter more for guys like Ashwin and Anderson who can be somewhat reliant on conditions.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It also undeniably worked considerably better at home...

I would also like to see anywhere where you can show me where Imran was contemporaneously rated as the best bowler of the era.

I also don't deny the variety aspect, but was it more effective? Hadlee bowled just as much in the middle innings, he had to, and ended up with the better record.

Imran was a brilliant cricketer and a valid choice, and I said this to Subz multiple times, if I thought he was as good a bowler as he did, this would be a no brainer.

Just too many astrix and questions.

Up to this morning I was thinking, without the tampering, would he have reversed it as well or as much, and I recalled the famous interview when he stated that even with the ball in that condition, no one else on the team got the same results. But he did...

And why the disparity of the home and away record, all the other questions that are everywhere on the interwebs.

As I said, without the questions, he's as much a lock as anyone to make everyone's all time teams. He just never has been.

By contemporary ratings Lillee was rated the best bowler. Imran was rated pretty highly.
Hadlee was more successful in the initial overs than middle ones. Quite opposite of Imran really.
Well, home/away disparity has many points; but he was consistently good away as well. ATG in WI, great in Australia, more than good in England and good in India as well. He didn't really faultered anywhere. Home umpiring, more suitable reverse swinging conditions and familiar pitches certainly helped. And come on, no bowler exists without any question marks.

 

[Bolo.]

Make your own to prove what ever point you want to.

My poll was based on voting for the the last 3 ATG teams selected by the forum (please feel free to check for yourself), the recent voting for the top bowlers and various other polls and threads.

Marshall was a unanimous choice the last time we voted for an AT XI, and McGrath has consistently been chosen as his running mate. Warne was just selected to not dilute the vote.

The option you wanted added was one that's never been chosen by the forum, never been selected by any publication, website, journalist, former player, tv personality etc etc etc...

Your notion of selecting an entire attack based on batting is just as unpopular, if not more so than mine of mostly just factoring in bowling. You want to omit the 2nd (and two other) best bowler, not to mention one who compliments the other guy perfectly, because he didn't bat well enough.

That's not even getting onto 3 pacers from the same era.

So respectfully your complaints are unfounded, unmerited, and not based on any precedent.

Your poll was effectively pick a 4th bowler to go along with Marshall, Warne and Mcgrath. Only one option did not include all 3, and it included Steyn, who is the least popular pick from your shortlist.

You are assuming these 3 are consensus picks. Which is fairly likely true. But saying people voting for them is evidence that they are consensus picks when there are no other options to vote for is like buying into the results of a North Korean election.

 

[ankitj]

There are probably two different questions worth addressing - should we care about tail batting when rating individual players and should we consider tail batting when picking bowlers to play in a real XI to play a real match.

My answer to former is "often yes", and to latter is "mostly no".

 

[kyear2]

Imrans away record doesn’t really matter since he was an ATG flat pitch bowler. Away records matter more for guys like Ashwin and Anderson who can be somewhat reliant on conditions.

Are you serious? He averaged 28 in India, sooooo... but yeah, his away record matters.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Are you serious? He averaged 28 in India, sooooo... but yeah, his away record matters.

Are you saying Imran wasn’t a truly great flat pitch bowler?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Are you serious? He averaged 28 in India, sooooo... but yeah, his away record matters.

28 in India is hardly bad. Steyn in England is much worse, or does anyone talks how McGrath averages 27 vs SA and 33 vs NZ at his very home?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I've talked about this before but 2015 Faulkner was a wrong decision that ended up working out for Australia because Faulkner's best bowling performances happened in 2015

So basically Faulkner was being picked to play as a bowling all-rounder who was expected and needed to bowl 7 to 10 overs, and was batting at 7 or below where there's a realistic chance he might not bat, or bat a very small amount of time, but it was his batting performances, because he had some memorable performances with the bat, that was keeping him in the team. (to the point that for the 2015 WC, we moved Brad Haddin to 8 which is insane). To me, this is is extremely illogical. you know what he has to do, and you know what he probably doesn't have to do, but you're picking him because of the later. His average with the ball was over 30 and some guy called Pat Cummins was the guy on the sidelines who uh I reckon could probably bowl to 7 to 10 overs a little bit better than James Faulkner.

As could have been reasonably expected, Faulkner's batting magic ran out, starting from 2015 the WC. His very last game before the WC he hit a 50*, and then from the 2015 WC to the end of his career, he had a OD batting average of 18.71. (It was 48.12 before the 2015 WC, nearly half of his innings were not out if you're wondering how it was that damn high). Meanwhile his bowling average at the 2015 WC was his second best in a series in which he played 2 or more games throughout his entire OD career. After the 2015 WC, his bowling went back to his pre-2015 levels (actually slightly better!) but with the batting magic gone, they realised that actually, Faulkner shouldn't be in the team. Which come the 2019 WC was kind of annoying because we needed a bowling all-rounder type to have at 7, but Faulkner was cooked. It's kind of amazing how Faulkner's bowling peaked when it really needed to and more or less went back to normal straight afterwards (but slightly better!!)

View attachment 38767

but anyway, this is for a guy batting at 7 or 8. not 9 or 10.

Faulkner won the WC for Australia by dismissing Taylor and Anderson in the 36th over. That was far more important than Starc getting McCullum in the 1st over.

Also Cummins was a mediocre ODI bowler at the time which is why he was dropped.

 

[kyear2]

By contemporary ratings Lillee was rated the best bowler. Imran was rated pretty highly.
Hadlee was more successful in the initial overs than middle ones. Quite opposite of Imran really.
Well, home/away disparity has many points; but he was consistently good away as well. ATG in WI, great in Australia, more than good in England and good in India as well. He didn't really faultered anywhere. Home umpiring, more suitable reverse swinging conditions and familiar pitches certainly helped. And come on, no bowler exists without any question marks.

We will disagree on the ATG in the WI, 25 vs a country just can't be, and that '88 team wasn't the juggernaut that it's being made out to be. Not to mention Viv (and Marshall) missed the first game, so good in the Caribbean. He was below par in Australia, very good in England and below par in India.

Home umpiring, yeah, but he also created some of those suitable reverse swing conditions. And yes, most players have question marks, but none quite to that extent, at least not at this level.

And to be clear, it not like I'm thinking he was horrible for doing it or anything of the sort, I just question how good he was without them, which was probably closer to his away record than home one. That's it.

And still he is viable for the team, because despite not being a top 4 pacer, I'll be crazy not to think his batting isn't a mitigating factor for some.

 

[capt_Luffy]

We will disagree on the ATG in the WI, 25 vs a country just can't be, and that '88 team wasn't the juggernaut that it's being made out to be. Not to mention Viv (and Marshall) missed the first game, so good in the Caribbean. He was below par in Australia, very good in England and below par in India.

Home umpiring, yeah, but he also created some of those suitable reverse swing conditions. And yes, most players have question marks, but none quite to that extent, at least not at this level.

And to be clear, it not like I'm thinking he was horrible for doing it or anything of the sort, I just question how good he was without them, which was probably closer to his away record than home one. That's it.

And still he is viable for the team, because despite not being a top 4 pacer, I'll be crazy not to think his batting isn't a mitigating factor for some.

I think you really are using the word "below par" too lightly. No doubt good in India and was better than any bowler to tour WI. Also was quite great in Australia, certainly not below par and his average takes a hit for playing the last series as mainly a batsman.
I honestly think his home record is over scrutinized. Certainly it was skill above all else that made him so fearsome at home. To be clear, most bowlers and players did questionable things at home back then. And I think you're over selling ball conditions reverse swing. Heck, Bumrah's balls were reverse swinging today in a T20....

 

[kyear2]

Your poll was effectively pick a 4th bowler to go along with Marshall, Warne and Mcgrath. Only one option did not include all 3, and it included Steyn, who is the least popular pick from your shortlist.

You are assuming these 3 are consensus picks. Which is fairly likely true. But saying people voting for them is evidence that they are consensus picks when there are no other options to vote for is like buying into the results of a North Korean election.

I was using precedent and Warne, as stated previously was just used as a baseline.

The logic behind McGrath... Very arguably a top 2 bowler of all time that maintained his numbers and dominance into the batting era, spearheaded one of the two greatest teams ever, perfectly compliments not only Marshall but had an unparalleled partnership with Warne.

And was voted along with Marshall as the opening pair for as long back as I can recall.

 

[kyear2]

Are you saying Imran wasn’t a truly great flat pitch bowler?

No, what are you basing this on?

Please before this gets misinterpreted, not saying he wasn't an ATG bowler, of course he was.