I mean, that's kinda the point. A batting that runs deep and bowling which is fast and has a lot of variable options. Like most of them makes it as either batsmen (like Kallis and ABD) or bowlers (Procter and Pollock); only Faulkner is here due to all-round play.
I'm aware, but his best talents were utilized bowling pace.
Yeah, really sad. I just threw in his spin because the majority argument for Tayfield and against Faulkner is that Faulkner is not really suitable to lead an attack in a Turner. Well, in a turner, Procter offies are more than welcome.
Simpson, Border and Chappell as a group is more than sufficient and combined more wpm that Miller while not weakening the batting.
Them combined having Miller's WPM at a combined average 7 times of his..... Yeah, it's not really the same thing. If you a good top order, good batting depth and a keeper who is an excellent bat; I don't Miller's batting would be as much of a downside as his bowling would be an upside. We can disagree on that. The net output, the total value you are providing to my team is what is always paramount to me.
I'm not playing Faulkner, he's before my cut off, and we keep mistaking quantity for quality.
You literally have 6 specialist batsmen, just one of them being a decent keep. I don't see the issue. The value Faulkner brings to the team is very unique and useful and I think it's not right to not consider him.
As 36 average batsman, that's not good enough for this level. So he's not making it on primary, and he's the 5th bowler who wouldn't he getting the ball where he was most successful.
As an all-rounder I think his total output will be very high. He isn't a bat as good as Border or Waugh, not even close; but he is more than sufficient for his role, especially considering his contribution with the ball.
No I agree with @kyear2 here. If your first four bowlers are Lillee/McGrath/Warne/Cummins, it kinda reduces the importance of the 5th bowler drastically. No batting lineup can withstand that firepower unless it's a dead wicket.
Hain. Doesn't this completely go against the perceived value batting all rounders bring?
I rate players vis primary skill first. And no, in most cases a fifth bowler is needed, but it shouldn't tbe the primary consideration. You need someone to assist with the rest and rotation, break partnerships, don't represent a drop off or give away the shop.
Depends. That's a great bowling attack but an opposition like WI can give them a tough fight. I feel another bowler Miller brings more than say Border or Ponting.
No. This is specific to ATG scenarios. Four ATG level bowlers removes the need for a good 5th bowling option.
Yes. In an ATG situation, you are dealing with 90 percent low scoring scenarios that removes the normal need for rest and rotation bowlers.
Sounds good on paper, but individually each batsman in a lineup will be facing a rotation of 4 ATGs. Imagine seeing off McGrath and Lillee only to be faced with Warne and Cummins. The odds of any bat performing to their normal standards is far lower, whereas any bowler can be immediately replaced by an ATG alternative if they have an off spell.
Procter
I've hardly ever witnessed a match when only 4 bowlers were used, genuinely can't recall. Need that cover, but doesn't have to be bowling more than hopefully 10 overs? Needed even. More if one of the guys are off, especially the spinner. Need that competent cover who wouldn't release pressure or get thrashed around the park.
Ignoring runouts and 5th bowlers, if these guys are striking at 60 against an ATG lineup, you need 50 overs a match on average per bowler to bowl a team out twice. Even Warne didn't bowl that much.