The long tail conundrum...

[kyear2]

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?

But there is a difference.

You're picking out the few bad in-between during a flat era, vs almost everywhere in a bowling one.

When you look at Imran's record away it's 24, 25, 28, 28 vs non minnows. The 28 wasn't an exception, it was closer to the rule.

McGrath has sterling records away almost everywhere, the 27 stands out. Who do you think was better?

Steyn and Imran both had their issues away.

Again the difference being one played in one of the 3 flattest eras of the sport, and the other bowled in one of the two most sporting and bowling friendly ones. Steyn's numbers were comparable with if not clear of his contemporaries while Imran's were behind his. And yes, Imran's contemporaries were two of the three greatest quicks ever. But he still wasn't as good away from home as they were.

Additionally, as I've said Steyn's strike rate for me was also a deciding factor, along with his record vs India. Conversely Imran was better*** with the old ball, and had his batting.

Never said it was clear cut, never said Imran was less that great. I've always said it's one of two positions that for me, was the hardest to fill. The 2nd opener and the 3rd seamer. The rest for me is pretty straight forward.

 

[TheJediBrah]

tail end batting is super important because "lots of games have been decided by it"

But picking a better bowler is more important because if your bowling was better you wouldn't be in the position to need tail-enders to bail you out

 

[reyrey]

Assuming the original post was based on another thread where the lower order and tail were Klusener, Pollock, Donald, Ntini, Tahir.

Firstly I'd bump Tahir to 9 so Donald is at 10, but it doesn't really change much as 9, 10 and 11 are still rabbits.

Wouldn't be particularly concerned with this in ODIs and the fact that Klusener and Pollock, 7 and 8 makes it even less concerning.

 

[kyear2]

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....

Below par is strictly in comparison to the other guys he's being compared with in this conversation.

And no, the last series just took it from mid 27 to 28. It didn't impact his record as is spoken of.

 

[kyear2]

tail end batting is super important because "lots of games have been decided by it"

But picking a better bowler is more important because if your bowling was better you wouldn't be in the position to need tail-enders to bail you out

It really is quite simple

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know about the short formats, but in Tests, it absolutely matters, and I would consider that. If all three (9-11) were all just head and shoulders above the replacements in their bowling, then you may have no choice (except maybe to go in with four bowlers and an extra batsman), but if it was close, it's a skill that's going to be important and it would play a role in my selection.

 

[kyear2]

I don't know about the short formats, but in Tests, it absolutely matters, and I would consider that. If all three (9-11) were all just head and shoulders above the replacements in their bowling, then you may have no choice (except maybe to go in with four bowlers and an extra batsman), but if it was close, it's a skill that's going to be important and it would play a role in my selection.

Not an unreasonable position to take