• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Adorable Asshole said:
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


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.
Click to expand...
The latter is a garbage point. He took a massive % of top order wickets and bowled to some great players on flat decks for a large part of his career.

The former is instructive. I'd not realized there were four innings in a test match before until some brain dead imbecile on here pointed it out to me. The idea that someone who average 38 with the bat in a standard era would still average 30 odd against an all time attack seems questionable in the extreme to me. If Imran gets into an AT side that's fine, but he has to get in on the basis his primary skill set as a bowler is good enough. The idea the runs he'd make in an AT XI contest would make a substantial difference is laughable. His batting was decent-very good for his time at its best. He's not going to make enough runs vs an AT attack if the contest for a spot is between him and another bowler who you think is measurably better as a bowler. If you think the two guys are relatively equal as bowlers and you want to use batting as a tie breaker then I can see your point.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Adorable Asshole said:
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.
Click to expand...
Healy kept Gilchrist out of the side for ages, which is why he daybooed at 29. Gilchrist only got a look in when it became apparent Healy's keeping skills had fallen away on the 99 tour of the West Indies.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Burgey said:
The former is instructive. I'd not realized there were four innings in a test match before until some brain dead imbecile on here pointed it out to me. The idea that someone who average 38 with the bat in a standard era would still average 30 odd against an all time attack seems questionable in the extreme to me. If Imran gets into an AT side that's fine, but he has to get in on the basis his primary skill set as a bowler is good enough. The idea the runs he'd make in an AT XI contest would make a substantial difference is laughable. His batting was decent-very good for his time at its best. He's not going to make enough runs vs an AT attack if the contest for a spot is between him and another bowler who you think is measurably better as a bowler. If you think the two guys are relatively equal as bowlers and you want to use batting as a tie breaker then I can see your point.
Click to expand...
My extensive analysis (read: I made it the **** up), tells me that Imran is the best 8, and Hadlee the best 9 for all-time teams.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Burgey said:
The latter is a garbage point. He took a massive % of top order wickets and bowled to some great players on flat decks for a large part of his career.

The former is instructive. I'd not realized there were four innings in a test match before until some brain dead imbecile on here pointed it out to me. The idea that someone who average 38 with the bat in a standard era would still average 30 odd against an all time attack seems questionable in the extreme to me. If Imran gets into an AT side that's fine, but he has to get in on the basis his primary skill set as a bowler is good enough. The idea the runs he'd make in an AT XI contest would make a substantial difference is laughable. His batting was decent-very good for his time at its best. He's not going to make enough runs vs an AT attack if the contest for a spot is between him and another bowler who you think is measurably better as a bowler. If you think the two guys are relatively equal as bowlers and you want to use batting as a tie breaker then I can see your point.
Click to expand...
And not to put too fine a point on it, but to highlight Burgey's point. Ask yourself how well Hooper would perform in such a format.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
TheJediBrah said:
He's kind of right though. Aus 2000s and WI 1980s didn't not have world class all rounders because it was their choice, they just didn't have one to choose from. If either side had a Shaun Pollock or Keith Miller to choose from they definitely would have picked them
Click to expand...
Pollock wouldn't have made the Aus side of his era. One of the most over rated cricketers of all time tbh.
 
ZK$

ZK$

U19 Cricketer
I think Marshall, Garner, Holding, and Walsh were all better bowlers than Pollock, so I’m not sure if I’d pick him tbh.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
OverratedSanity said:
He wasn't as good as his numbers suggest but walks into the side over both Gillespie and Lee.
Click to expand...
Peak Gillespie was very good. I rate Pollock higher but I don't think it's dumb to think otherwise. He was injury prone and his peak didn't last very long though, not to mention the fact that he was second rather than the third quick picked. Kaspa, Bichel and Lee combined for 133 Tests during Pollock's era, Pollock is definitely getting in over that lot.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Burgey said:
They do if they're playing in Aus. He was a nothing burger here.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have been if he didn't have to bowl to Australia every time he played here.

Brett Lee averaged 42 against SA at home which is actually much worse than Pollock's record in the same series even though Aus's batting lineup was better.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prince EWS said:
Peak Gillespie was very good. I rate Pollock higher but I don't think it's dumb to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Peak Pollock was averaging <20 and outperforming Donald statistically. It's not really close.

Adorable Asshole said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
kyear chooses to ignore the posts that prove his claims wrong. Saying Marshall or Mcgrath are more valuable than Bradman is such an absurd claim that it deserves nothing but mockery too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top