What would an ATG game really look like?

[subshakerz]

Are you saying it will average out?

No, somewhat leaning towards bowlers/low scores.

 

[subshakerz]

This is what happened with 80s WI team and they all averaged 21-24. Were up against plenty of mediocre batsmen as well. Here they will be up against some of the very best in history and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the ATG bowlers will average about the same.

I don think it will be impossible for one or two pacers to outperform the others based on conditions and get low averages.

 

[srbhkshk]

The idea that one can pigeonhole the performance of the absolute players in history is inherently flawed. They became the absolute best by a variety of performances in a variety of conditions under a variety of circumstances.

Neither do the batsman have any experience of facing absolute top class bowling over after over, nor do the bowlers of having to handle Lara , Sobers and Gilchrist walking in after somehow having dismissed a herculean top 4. I think it's better to think of this situation more in subjective terms rather than pretending we can predict what will go through the mind of 22 geniuses and how they will try to handle the situation.

One can assume that these factors will cancel each other out, but it's just an assumption, for all we know one of those factors could end up being far more critical than the other. For all the talk of bowling being more dominant, I can very well imagine Don and Viv on 30 each and the pitch starting to flatten out with Smith and Kallis still in the hut, the bowlers will be looking at more punishment in two days than Thakur gets in a year.

All in all, I wouldn't be surprised by Lara averaging either 10 or 150. Also wouldn't be surprised by consistent 500+ or sub 150 scores.

 

[subshakerz]

The idea that one can pigeonhole the performance of the absolute players in history is inherently flawed. They became the absolute best by a variety of performances in a variety of conditions under a variety of circumstances.

Neither do the batsman have any experience of facing absolute top class bowling over after over, nor do the bowlers of having to handle Lara , Sobers and Gilchrist walking in after somehow having dismissed a herculean top 4. I think it's better to think of this situation more in subjective terms rather than pretending we can predict what will go through the mind of 22 geniuses and how they will try to handle the situation.

One can assume that these factors will cancel each other out, but it's just an assumption, for all we know one of those factors could end up being far more critical than the other. For all the talk of bowling being more dominant, I can very well imagine Don and Viv on 30 each and the pitch starting to flatten out with Smith and Kallis still in the hut, the bowlers will be looking at more punishment in two days than Thakur gets in a year.

All in all, I wouldn't be surprised by Lara averaging either 10 or 150. Also wouldn't be surprised by consistent 500+ or sub 150 scores.

I think this is a fair point, we are in unchartered territory here which isn't factored into how we select teams.

For example, if it will naturally heavily favor bats, does that mean you definitely need five worldclass bowling options? If the opposite, does that change the team composition?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Whichever team has Bradman is likely to win. Yes, I know captain obvious.

Grace, Sobers and Barnes Disagree

 

[subshakerz]

I also think by the end of the series, I am willing to wager the Bradman advantage will be much reduced. A McGrath-Ambrose opening bowling pair is incredibly hard to score around.

 

[Slifer]

Grace, Sobers and Barnes Disagree

Respectfully, Sobers and Barnes aren't enough of outliers to tip the scale of one team significantly one way or the other. Grace: not sure what to make of a player from almost 150 years ago. At least there people still alive who can testify to seeing Bradman.

 

[Coronis]

Grace, Sobers and Barnes Disagree

They can disagree all they want, it won’t make a difference.

 

[shortpitched713]

But they will also be facing bowlers with immense skill, stamina and guile.

You see typically a ATG bowler in a normal Test doesn't bowl close to 100% effort because they know they will probably have a big workload due to being the only ATG in the team, so they tend to hold a little back.

In ATG V ATG games this won't be the case. You have 4 bowlers with immense skill, stamina and guile, plus a good 5th bowler so these ATG bowlers don't need to worry as much about holding anything back.

Do you think batsman would rather face Ambrose bowling an 8 over spell at 88mph or a 5 over spell bowling at 95mph?

I don't think that's really how that works, but I will grant the top bowlers who were more "1 man shows", like Hadlee would be much less likely to be fatigued towards the end of days, and end of matches, and have more impact.

 

[Coronis]

Not really. Here you have 4 fast men bowling up to 90 overs on day one. They'd need to bowl 22 or 23 overs each. They definitely weren't bowling full throttle all the time.

An ATG line up has an ATG spinner who can comfortably bowl a lot overs plus a good all rounder. Your ATG fast bowlers can go full throttle and be rested and rotated much much more easily.

A good example of this full throttle bowling is Mitchell Johnson and his 4 over bowling spells and the devastation he caused. Steyn is also another example of a bowler who would sometimes bowl full throttle, but he'd also bowl a lot of spells where he felt he had to hold back that style of bowling so he could use it for maximum impact at another point in the game.

I very much doubt they ever bowled close to 90 overs in a day.

 

[Victor Ian]

It would go to who wins the toss and has those other intangible things like changing an old ball for a new or having clouds always appear when you bowl or sunshine when you bat etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Respectfully, Sobers and Barnes aren't enough of outliers to tip the scale of one team significantly one way or the other. Grace: not sure what to make of a player from almost 150 years ago. At least there people still alive who can testify to seeing Bradman.

Barnes potentially is.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes potentially is.

Disagree here. Love Barnes but Marshall, McGrath are definitely in the same tier.

 

[subshakerz]

Disagree here. Love Barnes but Marshall, McGrath are definitely in the same tier.

If Marshall, McGrath are, why not Hadlee and Ambrose? Either don't rate Barnes with other ATGs or rate him ahead of all, IMO.

 

[srbhkshk]

If Marshall, McGrath are, why not Hadlee and Ambrose? Either don't rate Barnes with other ATGs or rate him ahead of all, IMO.

This reminds me of the time this forum tried to rank batsman something like -
...
24. Dravid
25. Grace
26. Younis (or maybe Miandad I don't remember)

Evidently, Grace getting ranked like this was a result of averaging among people who weren't willing to rank him at all vs people who wanted to rank him at the absolute top, but it was funny af anyway.

 

[Slifer]

If Marshall, McGrath are, why not Hadlee and Ambrose? Either don't rate Barnes with other ATGs or rate him ahead of all, IMO.

You are aware that most of his damage was done vs the minnow of his time and even then neither his average or sr are Bradmanesque compared to other bowlers. He averages 4 runs less than Marshall and even Steyn has a comparable strike rate and Rabada's sr is better. No one comes close to Bradmans average or conversion.

 

[subshakerz]

You are aware that most of his damage was done vs the minnow of his time and even then neither his average or sr are Bradmanesque compared to other bowlers. He averages 4 runs less than Marshall and even Steyn has a comparable strike rate and Rabada's sr is better. No one comes close to Bradmans average or conversion.

Sure then he isn't up there with Bradman, but then don't put him up there with any modern bowler then.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

If Marshall, McGrath are, why not Hadlee and Ambrose? Either don't rate Barnes with other ATGs or rate him ahead of all, IMO.

They are up there as well. Barnes is a top 10 where I don’t exactly know. His record is very great but it’s not Bradmanesque that bowling average is like 21 ish in modern times. Very great, arguably no.1 and definite top 10 but definitely not incomparable.

 

[Coronis]

Nobody has a Bradmanesque record in tests.

Fun fact: that’s why its called Bradmanesque.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nobody has a Bradmanesque record in tests.

What about Bradman?