Why Do ATG XI's Have More Pacers Than Specialist Spin Bowlers?

[shortpitched713]

My All Time XI (of cricket as I know it)

No Don, no currently playing players, and no one from eras in which cricket is vastly different than it is now ( so uncovered pitch era, or even the era of no video footage! are all out )

01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Matthew Hayden
03. Kumar Sangakkara +
04. Brian Lara
05. Viv Richards
06. Garry Sobers * (4,5)
07. Javed Miandad
08. Imran Khan* / Shaun Pollock (3)
09. Richard Hadlee / Shaun Pollock (2)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan (4,5)
11. Glenn McGrath (1)

No one agrees with my top 7. I know, it's fine and not relevant to the discussion. Just swap Greenidge/G.Smith for Hayden, Gilly for Sanga, Tendulkar for Miandad in your mind, change the order around a little and breathe, it's okay.

Another problem for spinners does become apparent though. Even if it's a spinny wicket, and you want to bring in Warne as a second spinner, taking out a Hadlee for instance for him does weaken your batting. Ultimately there are no truly elite spinners who are also all-rounders.

Edit:
Also, sorry for going full Richard on this thread. I thought it was really fascinating when I saw it earlier, and just didn't have any time during the week due to work to get out these ideas.

 

[kyear2]

So yeah, where possible pick the better specialist.
Don't need more than a useful 5th bowler and adequate no. 8 with the bat and hopefully at least two great and one above average slip fielders. Sobers alone covers two of those and Hadlee (my preference) more of less covers the other.
But shouldn't sacrifice quality to reach any of those objectives of possible, but if you have equal vs equal go with the one with extra utility.

 

[ataraxia]

My All Time XI (of cricket as I know it)

No Don, no currently playing players, and no one from eras in which cricket is vastly different than it is now ( so uncovered pitch era, or even the era of no video footage! are all out )

01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Matthew Hayden
03. Kumar Sangakkara +
04. Brian Lara
05. Viv Richards
06. Garry Sobers * (4,5)
07. Javed Miandad
08. Imran Khan* / Shaun Pollock (3)
09. Richard Hadlee / Shaun Pollock (2)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan (4,5)
11. Glenn McGrath (1)

No one agrees with my top 7. I know, it's fine and not relevant to the discussion. Just swap Greenidge/G.Smith for Hayden, Gilly for Sanga, And Tendulkar for Miandad in your mind, and breathe, it's okay.

Another problem for spinners does become apparent though. Even if it's a spinny wicket, and you want to bring in Warne as a second spinner, taking out a Hadlee for instance for him does weaken your batting. Ultimately there are no truly elite spinners who are also all-rounders.

Edit:
Also, sorry for going full Richard on this thread. I thought it was really fascinating when I saw it earlier, and just didn't have any time during the week due to work to get out these ideas.

hmm

 

[shortpitched713]

hmm

They were in both eras. Appreciate the gotchas though, keeps me on my cricket history toes.

 

[shortpitched713]

So yeah, where possible pick the better specialist.
Don't need more than a useful 5th bowler and adequate no. 8 with the bat and hopefully at least two great and one above average slip fielders. Sobers alone covers two of those and Hadlee (my preference) more of less covers the other.
But shouldn't sacrifice quality to reach any of those objectives of possible, but if you have equal vs equal go with the one with extra utility.

There's always nuance too it though.

Imagine you have a stacked batting lineup, with Botham at 8. Would you pick Curtly Ambrose or Imran at 9? These are inherently subjective questions, which discerning minds can disagree upon without being wrong.

 

[ataraxia]

Sobers played most of his cricket in England, which was on pitches that were called uncovered.

 

[Burgey]

Imran only slightly and with Hadlee it's debatable.

But let's Imran and Mcgrath. The marginal improvement that Mcgrath brings in bowling is not enough to offset what Imran brings in regards to batting and captaincy.

Mcgrath gonna take 8 for 160 and would hardly contribute with the bat while Imran would not only take 8 for 174 but also gonna hit 65 odd runs.

It may not seems much bit we have to remember that 80s India had a pretty fragile lower order and Imran strengthen it's by a lot. So does his captaincy. One of the biggest issues facing India in 80s was constant infighting and factionalism. So a captain like Imran has the capacity to stabilize a side like that.

As for Hadlee vs Mcgrath. I would pick Hadlee on bowling alone. His batting is just a plus.

Why would Imran make 60 odd with the bat in an AT context? He didn't average 40 in a standard era, and bowled in a less batsman-friendly era than McGrath. His career arc is also one where if he's taking wickets he's unlikely to be making runs, and vice versa.

The 2000s are widely regarded as the most batsman friendly era since the 1930s and McGrath averaged the equivalent of Hadlee and better than Imran. Batsmen get marked down for being prolific in the 2000s, but McGrath doesn't seem to get an equivalent upgrade. Always seems weird to me.

 

[kyear2]

Why would Imran make 60 odd with the bat in an AT context? He didn't average 40 in a standard era, and bowled in a less batsman-friendly era than McGrath. His career arc is also one where if he's taking wickets he's unlikely to be making runs, and vice versa.

The 2000s are widely regarded as the most batsman friendly era since the 1930s and McGrath averaged the equivalent of Hadlee and better than Imran. Batsmen get marked down for being prolific in the 2000s, but McGrath doesn't seem to get an equivalent upgrade. Always seems weird to me.

Exactly

 

[slowfinger]

Why would Imran make 60 odd with the bat in an AT context? He didn't average 40 in a standard era, and bowled in a less batsman-friendly era than McGrath. His career arc is also one where if he's taking wickets he's unlikely to be making runs, and vice versa.

The 2000s are widely regarded as the most batsman friendly era since the 1930s and McGrath averaged the equivalent of Hadlee and better than Imran. Batsmen get marked down for being prolific in the 2000s, but McGrath doesn't seem to get an equivalent upgrade. Always seems weird to me.

were the 2000s regarded as batsmen-friendly because the bowlers were generally of poor quality or was it to do with the quality of pitches? I think the former.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Most team also played for the draw during this period?

ASHEs 2005 shifted the paradigm

 

[shortpitched713]

Sobers played most of his cricket in England, which was on pitches that were called uncovered.

Very true. He's an exception, for me.

 

[shortpitched713]

The 2000s are widely regarded as the most batsman friendly era since the 1930s and McGrath averaged the equivalent of Hadlee and better than Imran. Batsmen get marked down for being prolific in the 2000s, but McGrath doesn't seem to get an equivalent upgrade. Always seems weird to me.

That's why he's McGoat to me. In a class of his own.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

McGrath and Co. failed to defend 418 in a fourth innings

 

[number11]

Top draw pace bowlers are more destructive than top draw spinners. SR are [typically] better, averages are lower. A great 4-prong pace attack can win in all conditions. A solidary spinner [of class] is enough. Inevitably in an AT WXI that'll be Murali or Warne. For national sides - for most sides the most devastating bowlers have been pacers. Spinners play a support role with few exceptions or in specific conditions.

 

[Burgey]

were the 2000s regarded as batsmen-friendly because the bowlers were generally of poor quality or was it to do with the quality of pitches? I think the former.

I think definitely the latter. Decks here for example were so flat in general it was crazy. Was an era where you could generally just pick the line and hit through it.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

O'Reilly ( and Grimmett too for that matter) have a huge whole in their record, in comparison to Murali and Warne. They played in an era when spinners actually generally took wickets at a better average (and basically the same strike rate) as their pace bowling peers. When you take that factor into account, you can't really any longer say that their bowling records can hold up in comparison to Murali and Warne, who played in the modern era of significant pace > spin advantage, and have very comparable bowling averages (in generally more batting friendly conditions to boot).

I would definitely have Murali and Warne ahead of Grimmett and any other spinner apart from O’Reilly.
Difficult to compare eras but I think Tiger would have slaughtered modern batsman with his near-medium pace deliveries.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Again, I don't think the bowling difference between McGrath and Imran is marginal and let's even just look at their statistics in India.
Both have decent sample size and Imran didn't play in India either at the beginning or end of his career.
McGrath averaged 21, Imran 28.

Batting or not, if I had a chance to get one of the 2 or 3 greatest bowlers who ever lived I'll take it. I do believe that little difference can make a difference between victory and defeat.
As some others have said, you go for the specialists, and if your team is generally relying on rear guard action to save tests, you might have bigger problems.

Note I'm not saying Imran wouldn't have been welcome during that period, his batting, bowling and captaincy would have been a plus. Just not over McGrath and at most 2 others.

Mcgrath averaged 29 in SL meanwhile Srinath does 24. So according to your logic we should play Srinath over McGrath.

As for his record in India, Imran played 2 series one in 1980 where he took 19 wickets @19 while in 87 he took 8 wickets @49. The 87 pitches were pretty for fast bowling. The best fast bowlers in the series was Akram who took 13 wickets @32. The second best Kapil took 11 wickets @39. So his performances in India while not as good as McGrath was not as bad as the average of 28 suggests.

I know you like to harp on his away record but as @OverratedSanity has demonstrated the away series he played in had higher batting average than other ATGs which skews his away average.

Just to add, I believe bowlers are the match winners in cricket and a bit more important than batsmen and I believe I'm taking Pigeon and Maco above any and everyone including the Don. I know that's heresy, and wouldn't garner agreement but those two are the catalysts of the two greatest teams ever and the point is to win. So no, this is not an Imran thing.

I don't even know what to say if you are gonna pick either Ms over Don. The opportunity cost of leaving Bradman is far bigger than leaving either of them. Hadlee and Steyn can easily replace them and have better stats in many condition. Can't say the same for Bradman.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Why would Imran make 60 odd with the bat in an AT context? He didn't average 40 in a standard era, and bowled in a less batsman-friendly era than McGrath. His career arc is also one where if he's taking wickets he's unlikely to be making runs, and vice versa.

Because a test match consists of 2 innings.

As for Imran not being a good batter at the same time he was a great bowler that's a myth.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

The 2000s are widely regarded as the most batsman friendly era since the 1930s and McGrath averaged the equivalent of Hadlee and better than Imran. Batsmen get marked down for being prolific in the 2000s, but McGrath doesn't seem to get an equivalent upgrade. Always seems weird to me.

Maybe because McGrath had the advantage of playing in one of the greatest teams ever. He never had to face the best batting lineup of his time. Compare to Hadlee and Imran, he got more than ample support from the rest of the bowlers. And the batsman regularly made big score which meant the pressure was always on the opposing team. Not to mention the fielding.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Also lol at the posters saying the best teams always prefer specialists over all-rounders. I wonder what Gilchrist was doing over Healy in that Australian side.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't even know what to say if you are gonna pick either Ms over Don. The opportunity cost of leaving Bradman is far bigger than leaving either of them. Hadlee and Steyn can easily replace them and have better stats in many condition. Can't say the same for Bradman.

I think he's going with absolute value, over above replacement cost, I think.

He's still ****ing wrong though.