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

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

There is no such description. If you already have 5 ATG batsmen and 2 bowling allrounders, you can Easily accommodate a clearly superior WK who averages 33 with bat. That will greatly increase WK quality.
Which is more important than Mcgrath's imaginary superiority over Hadlee's bowling.

 

[kyear2]

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.

If every run counts, explain dropping Border for Miller.

So as we're doing what ifs, so if Imran scores 12 and doesn't bowl as well as McGrath would have done.

Ok, you want to argue that keepers have to be able to bat, but does your opening bowlers?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If every run counts, explain dropping Border for Miller.

Every wicket counts too.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Dude this is a thesis. What a disservice to posters here who would want to respond that you can't compartmentalize your thoughts.

 

[kyear2]

Dude this is a thesis. What a disservice to posters here who would want to respond that you can't compartmentalize your thoughts.

I thought it was a well reasoned and thought out response.

You keep asking the same questions, so I tried to answer them. While also explaining my though process.

You've answered long posts before, but if it's easier for you to present pithy responses because there's nothing there for you to attack, just say so.

 

[subshakerz]

I thought it was a well reasoned and thought out response.

You keep asking the same questions, so I tried to answer them. While also explaining my though process.

You've answered long posts before, but if it's easier for you to present pithy responses because there's nothing there for you to attack, just say so.

You can keep the same length but break it over several posts for each point rather than a giant block of text. Just a kind recommendation.

 

[kyear2]

I think lower order batting is very important, we've all seen closely contested games where the tail had to bail out the team to avoid the prospect of following on or to even salvage a draw.

It's also a feature of weaker teams / fragile batting lineups and the importance is generally inversely proportional to the strength of the batting line up, where the batting of said lower order (or batsman) is almost comparable to that of the referenced middle order (neither of which is the case in an ATG scenario)

Teams with good / reliable / great batting lineups have been less reliant on such lower order resistance, and as I've said repeatedly it's never been a feature of great or winning teams. It's still always been useful though, and guys like Marshall and Warne etc have filled that role admirably for their respective teams.
So the same way I wouldn't shoehorn Hammond, or even Simpson (anymore), to fill the slip fielding criteria with the best ever (who actually does still qualify as a top 10 ATG), or Botham or Miller to fill the 5th bowling criteria, I personally wouldn't do the same for the bowling when their primary job is to take wickets and win us games. As yes, I can easily make the same case for Hammond over Sachin, that you use for Imran.

Yes you want competent to even great options for your no. 8 spot, 5th bowler role and 2nd slip in particular, but not to the detriment of the primary roles.

Balance, and someone like Coronis probably fills that best with a lineup of Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and McGrath. Best 3 pacers and still depth all the way to 10 (he incidentally also includes Hammond in his team)

Conveniently Sobers exists and also fill the other two roles as described.

 

[kyear2]

You can keep the same length but break it over several posts for each point rather than a giant block of text. Just a kind recommendation.

These are just excuses now.

I have a short and easy one for you.

You've countered that while Australia and WI didn't have Imran, both of them would have benefitted from his batting.

So, do you think they would have traded for Imran's batting if it would cost them Waugh and Ponting's / Lloyd, Richards's and Richardson's catching?

 

[subshakerz]

These are just excuses now.

I have a short and easy one for you.

You've countered that while Australia and WI didn't have Imran, both of them would have benefitted from his batting.

So, do you think they would have traded for Imran's batting if it would cost them Waugh and Ponting's / Lloyd, Richards's and Richardson's catching?

That is called a red herring. Imran is in contention for a pace spot in an Aus or WI lineup and would have easily got it.

Nobody, NOBODY is suggesting a tradeoff between slip catching and Imran's lower order batting, except you.

The real point that emerged is an in an ATG situation, Imran's lower order batting becomes more valuable as scores are lower, which is indisputable.

 

[kyear2]

That is called a red herring. Imran is in contention for a pace spot in an Aus or WI lineup and would have easily got it.

Nobody, NOBODY is suggesting a tradeoff between slip catching and Imran's lower order batting, except you.

The real point that emerged is an in an ATG situation, Imran's lower order batting becomes more valuable as scores are lower, which is indisputable.

As you're so fond of saying,

Just answer the question.....

It's not a red herring, were having a philosophical argument and you're constantly saying one is way one important than the other, so .... trades come at a cost. So, with the Australian team as was constituted, would they have taken in Imran's batting if it cost them Ponting and Waugh's catching at slip?

I could ask @Prince EWS , @Burgey , @TheJediBrah if you prefer, on if the trade off would have been worth it.

They could all tell me I'm wrong.

 

[capt_Luffy]

As you're so fond of saying,

Just answer the question.....

It's not a red herring, were having a philosophical argument and you're constantly saying one is way one important than the other, so .... trades come at a cost. So, with the Australian team as was constituted, would they have taken in Imran's batting if it cost them Ponting and Waugh's catching at slip?

I could ask @Prince EWS , @Burgey , @TheJediBrah if you prefer, on if the trade off would have been worth it.

They could all tell me I'm wrong.

So like what you're saying is whether Australia would trade Ponting for Imran in an ATG scenario?? I can't see how stupid they have to be to not do that really.....

 

[kyear2]

That is called a red herring. Imran is in contention for a pace spot in an Aus or WI lineup and would have easily got it.

Nobody, NOBODY is suggesting a tradeoff between slip catching and Imran's lower order batting, except you.

The real point that emerged is an in an ATG situation, Imran's lower order batting becomes more valuable as scores are lower, which is indisputable.

It is not, and these absolutes are crazy.

I've made the argument even in my second to last post.

The importance of a viable tail is inversely proportional to the strength of your batting line up and in which cases the lower order batting is question is comparable to the middle order, it's bailing out.
In a line up of Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers and Gilchrist, and when you already have Marshall and Warne in the tail (so it's not a liability), not only is none of the above the case or applicable, but is it imperative to strengthen the batting at the detriment of the bowling.

Now compare that to with an attack with any of Marshall, McGrath, Warne, Steyn and Hadlee, where more than half their scalps were claim behind the wicket, is it isn't viable And imperative to make sure you have as strong a cordon as possible to ensure you take as many of those chances as possible?

 

[kyear2]

So like what you're saying is whether Australia would trade Ponting for Imran in an ATG scenario?? I can't see how stupid they have to be to not do that really.....

1. That's not the question asked and I assume you know this.

2. Not talking about an ATG scenario, I mean for the team back them as constituted and playing normal teams.

Would they take on better order batting if it meant losing the catching of Waugh and Ponting, depends how far back you go, Taylor.

Is that a net gain or loss for the squad?

 

[capt_Luffy]

1. That's not the question asked and I assume you know this.

2. Not talking about an ATG scenario, I mean for the team back them as constituted and playing normal teams.

Would they take on better order batting if it meant losing the catching of Waugh and Ponting, depends how far back you go, Taylor.

Is that a net gain or loss for the squad?

Depends who are standing in the slips really. You need 2 or 3 good slip fielders, anything more is pretty useless and would be better if they're good in the outfield. Late order batting is handy from everyone.

 

[Coronis]

I think lower order batting is very important, we've all seen closely contested games where the tail had to bail out the team to avoid the prospect of following on or to even salvage a draw.

It's also a feature of weaker teams / fragile batting lineups and the importance is generally inversely proportional to the strength of the batting line up, where the batting of said lower order (or batsman) is almost comparable to that of the referenced middle order (neither of which is the case in an ATG scenario)

Teams with good / reliable / great batting lineups have been less reliant on such lower order resistance, and as I've said repeatedly it's never been a feature of great or winning teams. It's still always been useful though, and guys like Marshall and Warne etc have filled that role admirably for their respective teams.
So the same way I wouldn't shoehorn Hammond, or even Simpson (anymore), to fill the slip fielding criteria with the best ever (who actually does still qualify as a top 10 ATG), or Botham or Miller to fill the 5th bowling criteria, I personally wouldn't do the same for the bowling when their primary job is to take wickets and win us games. As yes, I can easily make the same case for Hammond over Sachin, that you use for Imran.

Yes you want competent to even great options for your no. 8 spot, 5th bowler role and 2nd slip in particular, but not to the detriment of the primary roles.

Balance, and someone like Coronis probably fills that best with a lineup of Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and McGrath. Best 3 pacers and still depth all the way to 10 (he incidentally also includes Hammond in his team)

Conveniently Sobers exists and also fill the other two roles as described.

I am the best thankyou for finally confirming.

 

[kyear2]

Depends who are standing in the slips really. You need 2 or 3 good slip fielders, anything more is pretty useless and would be better if they're good in the outfield. Late order batting is handy from everyone.

We're replacing them with Pakistan's from the 90's.

And who says we need more than 2 or 3, there are only 4 bowlers as well, I don't get the point.

Handy yes, it's been proven though not to be crucial. A decent no 8 and you're golden.

Pakistan up to a few months ago proved that one weak link can cost you a series.

And you're not answering the question.

For that Aussie team that ruled till about 2007, are you bringing in better lower order batting of the level of Imran, if it costs you the quality of slip cordon that they had. Would the team be better?

 

[kyear2]

The answer is no btw.

 

[capt_Luffy]

We're relaxing them with Pakistan's from the 90's.

And who says we need more than 2 or 3, there are only 4 bowlers as well, I don't get the point.

Handy yes, it's been proven though not to be crucial. A decent no 8 and you're golden.

Pakistan up to a few months ago proved that one weak link can cost you a series.

And you're not answering the question.

For that Aussie team that ruled till about 2007, are you bringing in better lower order batting of the level of Imran, if it costs you the quality of slip cordon that they had. Would the team be better?

Again, I am just simplying asking you the slip cordon they will get instead. Answer that first and then I will decide.

 

[kyear2]

Again, I am just simplying asking you the slip cordon they will get instead. Answer that first and then I will decide.

Sorry, typo in the initial response.

Pakistan's from the 90's.

Really doesn't matter though, I'm not giving up Waugh and Ponting for lower order batting, not worth it.

We're talking about two of the very best ever who took multiple half chances to win Australia matches.

 

[subshakerz]

For that Aussie team that ruled till about 2007, are you bringing in better lower order batting of the level of Imran, if it costs you the quality of slip cordon that they had. Would the team be better?

Un no. They are so beyond other teams that they don't need extra lower order batting. They could also have a crap slip cordon and still win easily.

But who cares? This is entirely your own scenario that nobody is interested in arguing except you

The importance of a viable tail is inversely proportional to the strength of your batting line up and in which cases the lower order batting is question is comparable to the middle order, it's bailing out.

No. Depends entirely on the strength of the bowling they are facing.

Now compare that to with an attack with any of Marshall, McGrath, Warne, Steyn and Hadlee, where more than half their scalps were claim behind the wicket, is it isn't viable And imperative to make sure you have as strong a cordon as possible to ensure you take as many of those chances as possible?

Again, depending on who they face. If it's a crap team, they have full license to spill every second catch and the bowling team still wins. You don't seem to accept this for lower order batting.