Which players would be locks in every OTHER country’s ATG XI?

[ataraxia]

So bowlers are giving more runs per wicket.

Yet batsmen are also magically scoring less.

Yet team scores aren't really affected.

Right....

Yes correct.

 

[Coronis]

So bowlers are giving more runs per wicket.

Yet batsmen are also magically scoring less.

Yet team scores aren't really affected.

Right....

It actually makes perfect sense

 

[subshakerz]

It actually makes perfect sense

Yeah @capt_Luffy explained it, I get it now.

 

[kyear2]

Pretty sure this forum consistently ranks Imran the 3rd greatest cricketer ever.


How disingenuous. You know Imrans competition in the ATG XI is among pacers like Steyn who CW ranks a couple of places ahead. Putting him ahead because of batting is perfectly reasonable yet you insist on making this an issue.

Imran pretty comfortably makes most ATG XIs on this board too.


Because you think Imran invented ball tampering.


You also believe Hadlee vs McGrath as cricketers is a tossup so it's clear you disregard lower order runs entirely.


You still calculate elite slip fielding in terms of runs?

I'll try to respond to each as best I can. Because this will apparently never end.

I don't try to make anything an issue, it's just not how I would do it. The whole Miller scenario to genuinely makes no sense, I've said this. You weaken the batting then try to bolster it with the tail is insanity to me. You're saying that the 5th bowling spot is more important and more of a priority than the 2nd and 3rd. You're picking the no. 6 batsman based on their bowling then the bowlers based on batting. This isn't an Imran thing, but you insist on making it about him.

I don't think he invented it, I do think he not only used it, and a lot, but passed it down proudly.

Yes, Hadlee was a better batsman and very much in the same league as McGrath as a bowler. I think though his bounce, seam and accuracy compliments the other two a bit better than Hadlee's swing. And yes it's a toss up in my head, as it is for others as well. The last time we voted for an all time team, McGrath was a comfortable selection, again I'm not the only one.

So yes, I don't value lower order runs as much as you do, I prefer to pick the best attack and support them by taking the catches that comes. Outside of CW this isn't a strange notion. I hope this part isn't taken the wrong way, but believe it's almost a regional thing at this point. A lot to do with the type of cricket one watched growing up and on what type of wickets. I would ask you though, during the 90's how many test matches did dropped catches cost your team?

I calculate it in terms of what I've seen, I also find it hilarious how some think that wicket keeper batsmen should be a 70 / 30 split for batting. I'm taking Knott over anyone not named Gilchrist 100% of the time. Flower isn't an option, neither most of the guys that for all the hype average just about 10 more runs than he did.

I've started popping into the tour threads since my return, not a lot, but primarily when they've either been mentioning the importance of slip catching or if a great catch was taken or silly drops from persons who shouldn't have been there. Pakistan lost a winnable game due to one guy in the cordon just a few weeks ago. When you go though old WI or Australia matches, reports and clips you see how important it was to their success. And contrary to some belief a lot of these games were competitive and catching was key and a major focus. Having Smith and Kallis as a long term combo was crucial to Steyn's success as illustrated by the attachment that was posted a few weeks ago (which I can't find, so if anyone knows where it was kindly send it to me please). So yes, if I'm building a team I want my Mark Waugh, Kallis or which ever name you prefer, it's a crucial position.

But I think your's and other people's issues with seeing the importance of the position is that.... There's no numbers and averages to fawn over, not something that's pops off a scoreboard, it's subtle, and requires watching and taking the grand scheme of the game into consideration.

An argument you consistently make, in an ATG contest lower order batting counts more than most else, this argument is hypothetical (and I believe wrong). I think I can say with a great degree of certainty that slip catching has won and contributed to more match wins than lower order batting. And most of the lower order batting heroics weren't carried out by the "all rounders" either. Marshall, Warne, hell guys like Walsh and Leach have famous examples. I'm not saying it's not important, but it hasn't been proven historically to be a needle mover for winning teams (contributing more for weaker batting line ups) and it's not significant enough for me to select bowlers based on their batting, you're selected to take 20 wickets, that's your job. Even for your theory, and I've raised this before, for a team with stacked batting (Bradman Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers), and bowlers who took more than half of their victims caught behind the stumps, how can lower order batting be more pivotal than taking the chances that Maco, Pidge, Steyn, Warne and Paddles create? But because there aren't stats and most here base principles on players they like rather than how the game actually works, that's ignored.

Since you will still bring it back to Imran, an example I saw a few weeks back in a thread that I though was illuminating. We were looking at best all round performances. Marshall and Imran had great performances vs India a few years apart, Marshall in India, Imran's at home. They both scored the same amount of runs from the same amount of innings, one had an average in the 30's, one I think was around 60 (may be 50's don't recall). Now not saying Marshall was nearly as good, just found that interesting.

So sorry for the length, and no this wouldn't impact how you see things but I've answered your questions honestly and as clearly as I could.

 

[kyear2]

Does he?

He doesn't, that's in his head. I would say just about half.

 

[kyear2]

It's really only around 50-60%, but I don't think that's enough ground to dismiss him as the 4th greatest cricketer of all time. I mean, Gilly almost makes all the teams, but I don't think many people will call him better than Kallis Or Imran, two people who doesn't.

I love how you slip in Grace there, lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

I love how you slip in Grace there, lol

I mean, if you don't really think Grace is one of, if not the greatest cricketer of all time, I will be really perplexed.

 

[kyear2]

It's really only around 50-60%, but I don't think that's enough ground to dismiss him as the 4th greatest cricketer of all time. I mean, Gilly almost makes all the teams, but I don't think many people will call him better than Kallis Or Imran, two people who doesn't.

Agree on the percentages, but genuine question.

Kallis is a top 10 quality batsman and slip fielder and a very good 5th bowling option, probably the 2nd best ever.

As a comp I see him and Imran very similarly. So what makes Imran a top 5 player but Kallis not?

 

[kyear2]

I’m pretty sure the majority seem to have a make up of 6 batsmen, Gilchrist, Marshall + McGrath, Warne/Murali and then the 3rd pacer varies between Hadlee, Steyn, Imran, Wasim. At least that’s what I recall. I wouldn’t say any of those 4 have a majority.

Yeah, this.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Agree on the percentages, but genuine question.

Kallis is a top 10 quality batsman and slip fielder and a very good 5th bowling option, probably the 2nd best ever.

As a comp I see him and Imran very similarly. So what makes Imran a top 5 player but Kallis not?

I believe you also have Imran as a top 10 bowler, and I don't know for sure if you rate Kallis so highly as a batsman. And batsman is better than bowler Kallis. Also, well batting allrounders have a diminishing return as bowlers. So, to put it simply, Imran is a better bowler than Kallis is batsman and Imran is better batsman than Kallis is bowler; the captaincy and fielding are about equal for me.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Knott > Gilly is acceptable
Mcgrath > Hadlee.. Is laughable

And if you Select Gilly over Knott due to batting , and then Mcgrath over Hadlee due to superiority in primary skill.. Thats hypocrisy.

 

[kyear2]

I believe you also have Imran as a top 10 bowler, and I don't know for sure if you rate Kallis so highly as a batsman. And batsman is better than bowler Kallis. Also, well batting allrounders have a diminishing return as bowlers. So, to put it simply, Imran is a better bowler than Kallis is batsman and Imran is better batsman than Kallis is bowler; the captaincy and fielding are about equal for me.

Well that's where we differ, I have them about the same quality on primary skills. Not quite the top tier.

I don't see the diminished returns between the bowling of Kallis and the batting of Imran. His economy rate is pretty good, so he's not giving away the shop and he took wickets. I would give Imran the edge in secondary skills though, but think Kallis was handled much better than someone like Sobers for example. Slip catching erases that difference though and as cricketers I don't see them that far apart.

I'm not going to argue with you cumulatively having Imran top 4, but by that same standard Kallis should be up there as well if that's how you rate players

 

[kyear2]

Knott > Gilly is acceptable
Mcgrath > Hadlee.. Is laughable

And if you Select Gilly over Knott due to batting , and then Mcgrath over Hadlee due to superiority in primary skill.. Thats hypocrisy.

As I said days ago in the wicketkeeping thread. Keepers for me are chosen 60/40 based on keeping and batting. Also Gilchrist kept excellently to Warne and once he can do that, it's good enough for me.

I've also said that Hadlee has a reasonable argument to be ahead of McGrath re batting. But I also believe McGrath is a clear no 2, not just for me but most of the forum As a bowler and as an opening pair I don't think there's any better set than Marshall and McGrath. They compliment each other perfectly, the skiddy vs steepling bounce, swing vs seam. One examines your technique vs the one that challenges your will. This is not a slight in Hadlee.

But thanks for your input.

 

[Coronis]

Knott > Gilly is acceptable
Mcgrath > Hadlee.. Is laughable

And if you Select Gilly over Knott due to batting , and then Mcgrath over Hadlee due to superiority in primary skill.. Thats hypocrisy.

What if I select both?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

As I said days ago in the wicketkeeping thread. Keepers for me are chosen 60/40 based on keeping and batting. Also Gilchrist kept excellently to Warne and once he can do that, it's good enough for me.

I've also said that Hadlee has a reasonable argument to be ahead of McGrath re batting. But I also believe McGrath is a clear no 2, not just for me but most of the forum As a bowler and as an opening pair I don't think there's any better set than Marshall and McGrath. They compliment each other perfectly, the skiddy vs steepling bounce, swing vs seam. One examines your technique vs the one that challenges your will. This is not a slight in Hadlee.

But thanks for your input.

Knott is clearly superior and a league above Gilly as WK, so it makes sense to select Knott over Gilly.
Hadlee is arguably better bowler than Mcgrath and vastly better in batting.. That makes Mcgrath's selection laughable.

But then you are making microscopic examinations to validate Mcgrath's selection over Hadlee , and completely ignoring the value of Knott's superior wicket keeping abilities.
If you really keen about minimal differences in specialist skills, you wont select Gilly.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

What if I select both?

Greed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well that's where we differ, I have them about the same quality on primary skills. Not quite the top tier.

I don't see the diminished returns between the bowling of Kallis and the batting of Imran. His economy rate is pretty good, so he's not giving away the shop and he took wickets. I would give Imran the edge in secondary skills though, but think Kallis was handled much better than someone like Sobers for example. Slip catching erases that difference though and as cricketers I don't see them that far apart.

I'm not going to argue with you cumulatively having Imran top 4, but by that same standard Kallis should be up there as well if that's how you rate players

I think Imran is closer to Marshall than Kallis is to Sachin; and batting allrounders give diminishing return as bowlers, sometimes even negative contribution; while I think Imran's late order batting is much more valuable. I think we just disagree here.

 

[kyear2]

Knott is clearly superior and a league above Gilly as WK, so it makes sense to select Knott over Gilly.
Hadlee is arguably better bowler than Mcgrath and vastly better in batting.. That makes Mcgrath's selection laughable.

But then you are making microscopic examinations to validate Mcgrath's selection over Hadlee , and completely ignoring the value of Knott's superior wicket keeping abilities.
If you really keen about minimal differences in specialist skills, you wont select Gilly.

1. The're not microscopic examinations, they are the reasons I want McGrath.

2. Batting, for better or worse is a part of the modern WK position description, it's not for my opening bowlers..

I agree that you shouldn't have complete rabbits for your entire tail. That's not in question, but considering that Marshall and Warne held those roles and we're more than food enough for quite literally the best two teams ever. That's good enough for me.

And again, not a knock against Hadlee and I have him rated higher than most at no. 5.

 

[kyear2]

I think Imran is closer to Marshall than Kallis is to Sachin; and batting allrounders give diminishing return as bowlers, sometimes even negative contribution; while I think Imran's late order batting is much more valuable. I think we just disagree here.

Well yeah, we disagree on all of it.

They basically batted in the same era, while one had much more challenging home conditions, both had very long careers and one averaged higher. Yes Sachin is better, but let's not pretend that it was all about production. The perception that Kallis batted slowly is the primary reason he's rated lower.

And how is his bowling diminished returns but Imran's batting is "valuable"? One isn't as good as a front line bowler and one isn't as productive as a front line batsman, or even as much their own average suggests.
If they sometimes give negative returns, more often than not lower order batsmen fail. It's the same thing, we've just developed this mindset that bowling all rounders are the keys to a great team, where that's never been borne out in history.

To hear you'll tell it, because of lower order batting Pakistan never lost a match. It fails more often than it succeeds, and a lot of the runs comes in high scoring draws. So I guess diminishing returns as well then?

But hey, you know which secondary skill doesn't come with diminishing returns and has been historically proven to help teams win, having a great cordon. Funny how that works out.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well yeah, we disagree on all of it.

They basically batted in the same era, while one had much more challenging home conditions, both had very long careers and one averaged higher. Yes Sachin is better, but let's not pretend that it was all about production. The perception that Kallis batted slowly is the primary reason he's rated lower.

And how is his bowling diminished returns but Imran's batting is "valuable"? One isn't as good as a front line bowler and one isn't as productive as a front line batsman, or even as much their own average suggests.
If they sometimes give negative returns, more often than not lower order batsmen fail. It's the same thing, we've just developed this mindset that bowling all rounders are the keys to a great team, where that's never been borne out in history.

To hear you'll tell it, because of lower order batting Pakistan never lost a match. It fails more often than it succeeds, and a lot of the runs comes in high scoring draws. So I guess diminishing returns as well then?

But hey, you know which secondary skill doesn't come with diminishing returns and has been historically proven to help teams win, having a great cordon. Funny how that works out.

You know that each and every single run counts. So if Imran makes even 30 runs a game more than McGrath that's a significant and tangible contribution. The reason Kallis isn't rated higher than Sachin is because Sachin was better across more conditions while Kallis did struggled in England.