Why is it viewed as more important

[Starfighter]

I still think you might be overestimating the importance though, especially if comparing 2 players with a slight difference in fielding ability at best.

However, I don't see how people can watch games of cricket, even like those in the recent Aus summer where Pakistan almost literally dropped a Test match and NZ dropping Marsh led to a 150 run partnership that decided the Test, and then come in and say "a dropped catch is worth 16 runs on average so that's that"

Well of course there's a range of situations, sometimes they cost nothing at all. But thinking in averages leads to some odd conclusions. There was an absolute idiot in another thread recently who thought that an extra five runs on a batting average was literally an extra ten runs per match, whereas it's more like a greater number of fifties being converted to centuries.

 

[subshakerz]

In a low scoring game, and I've answered this before, taking wickets is at a premium and hence the most important factor. In that scenario, I'm not sacrificing my best bowlers for one that may score more runs.

Really, so you believe in a high scoring game, scoring runs is a premium or aren't wickets more valuable in those circumstances? Honestly, you are just being contrarian here because you don't want to admit any extra 20-30 runs in a low-scoring game matter quite a bit which is obvious but it destroys your argument.

I can ask you the same question though, In a low scoring match, don't you need to take very chance that's presented? One drop and that can be the innings from a Bradman that changes the match (and yes Bradman was dropped once and went on to score a double against us)

Obviously, catches matter more in high-scoring games when chances to take wickets are fewer. They matter less in low scoring scenarios when there is a high likelihood another bowler will get the same batsman out later. This isn't complicated.

In multiple posts I've made mention of this. One in particular where I spelled out my tiers and why each person wasn't in each. I know you read it because you replied to it.

You are evading the point. Your reasoning for rating Steyn higher was specifically Steyn succeeding in a flat pitch era. Do you apply that consistently is the question.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In a low scoring game, and I've answered this before, taking wickets is at a premium and hence the most important factor. In that scenario, I'm not sacrificing my best bowlers for one that may score more runs.

This is the most backwards-ass thing I've read on the forum. In low scoring games, wickets are by definition not at a premium, runs are.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the most backwards-ass thing I've read on the forum. In low scoring games, wickets are by definition not at a premium, runs are.

He is denying basic logic just to preserve his argument.

If we can't agree that runs are more important when scores are low, we might as well not agree the Earth is round.

 

[Bolo.]

Well of course there's a range of situations, sometimes they cost nothing at all. But thinking in averages leads to some odd conclusions. There was an absolute idiot in another thread recently who thought that an extra five runs on a batting average was literally an extra ten runs per match, whereas it's more like a greater number of fifties being converted to centuries.

Thinking in terms of average (or more accurately for the games they played in, RPT, including partnership runs) doesn't give much of an answer to how many games are going to be swung.

But it does give an idea of the relative value of extra batting or fielding. The distributions are both going to be wonky (perhaps a bit less so in the case of lower order bats), and with a big enough sample, adding runs is going to be a pretty decent representation of who is winning more games.

 

[number11]

I think we've taken this bowlers are better than batsmen thing too far. Yes I agree that bowlers have slightly higher value especially if you value wins.
But without batsmen you still lose every contest, not draw, lose.

That's never been a great team without a ATG batsman in the top 4 to complement the ATG bowler.

So if a great bowling all rounder is worth their weight in gold, aren't the likes of Sobers, Kallis, Hammond etc as well?. An ATG batsman, equally useful 5th bowler with 5fers and an ATG slip fielder par excellence who's safe while taking half chances.

This post is the exact premise of the entire thread right there, one is seen as invaluable while the others are seen as much lower.

All two both* are invaluable, but those 3 way guys are even more impactful because they influence all aspects of the game.

There's a reason Sobers is seen as one of the two undisputed deities of the game and at worse 1A among players.

No one said "much lower". The Q was why are bowlers valued more - they win test matches. Obviously batsman are important - crucial, but (a) that was not contested and (b) that was not the question.

 

[kyear2]

Really, so you believe in a high scoring game, scoring runs is a premium or aren't wickets more valuable in those circumstances? Honestly, you are just being contrarian here because you don't want to admit any extra 20-30 runs in a low-scoring game matter quite a bit which is obvious but it destroys your argument.


Obviously, catches matter more in high-scoring games when chances to take wickets are fewer. They matter less in low scoring scenarios when there is a high likelihood another bowler will get the same batsman out later. This isn't complicated.



You are evading the point. Your reasoning for rating Steyn higher was specifically Steyn succeeding in a flat pitch era. Do you apply that consistently is the question.

I want to answer your questions, but trying to keep this short, let's see how it goes.

Nothing destroys any argument. This is the only place where I consistently read that you build your team around lower order batting, and it's like a quarter of the forum, and that's just crazy to me.

I've never said lower order runs don't matter or aren't valuable, far less trashed the notion.
What I have said is that the batting strength of my no. 8 isn't the primary objective of the selection, is it be factored in, yes, but it can't be the primary criteria.

One reason I wouldn't is that by definition lower order runs isn't something that can be counted on as consistently, it's not every match that's these scenarios are going to play out. Who says he's going to account for an extra 20 or 30 runs over his replacement, and in the instances he doesn't you've selected the bowler you're less confident in.
And to be honest, it's not always the all-rounders who scores these runs, look at most of the famous 4th innings chases or saves.

The other reason is that with only 4 of them I want the best bowlers, or at least the ones that compliment each other the best.

According to these arguments you would imagine that Pakistan never lost a test because you have that stop gap there, it honestly doesn't factor in nearly as often as being purported here.
And I'm not being contrarian, this argument has never made sense to me. But again, that's not trashing lower order batting. There are instances where Maco saved or set up wins for us, of course it can be valuable.

And it's either every run matters or it doesn't. You can't say it does, but then if a cat h is dropped, and it leads to an extra 50 runs then it doesn't matter. Every drop is a wicket missed and if you're going to drop a couple a match, then it's going to cost you matches and series.

The same way you're not going to factor in who is going to be in your slip cordon into your selection process, this isn't a major consideration for mine, if it weakens the attack. It's not tit for tat, which has been going around today, it's my genuine belief.

That's the beauty of a Sobers or Hadlee, it doesn't require a compromise to add that additional skill. I've also not said mind you, that for you your guy isn't a viable option, because these are false counters that are being made.

Finally re Steyn? He's picked because he compliments my two front line guys perfectly. He's attacking and he keeps going for wickets, the ball is always up. His strike rate is phenomenal, and he can reverse it. He's the guy I want.

I have to go, but final question, and it's hypothetical. Over the course of a test series where the batting has Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Gilchrist, and in the same test series you have an attack comprising any of Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Haddlee and Warne.... Which do you think will factor more into results, the lower order batting (behind that line up), or a slip cordon (to that attack). Not saying both may not be called upon, but which do you think would be critical to wins.

I know you can't possibly publicly change your opinion, so well just agree to disagree.

 

[subshakerz]

One reason I wouldn't is that by definition lower order runs isn't something that can be counted on as consistently, it's not every match that's these scenarios are going to play out. Who says he's going to account for an extra 20 or 30 runs over his replacement, and in the instances he doesn't you've selected the bowler you're less confident in.
And to be honest, it's not always the all-rounders who scores these runs, look at most of the famous 4th innings chases or saves.

The other reason is that with only 4 of them I want the best bowlers, or at least the ones that compliment each other the best.

You havent addressed how wickets matter more than runs in low scoring games. At least address the argument if you are going to write so much.

You are now going to ridiculous lengths to say bowling AR don't matter because they can't deliver runs every game. They don't have to deliver runs every game because the ATG bats don't either.

But yes they will give more runs over a series and because there are low scoring ATG games, those runs matter. I can give you plenty of chases and saves done by bowling ARs too.

Just say you will pick 4 top ATG specialist bowlers regardless and stop using these weird arguments to justify.

I have to go, but final question, and it's hypothetical. Over the course of a test series where the batting has Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Gilchrist, and in the same test series you have an attack comprising any of Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Haddlee and Warne.... Which do you think will factor more into results, the lower order batting (behind that line up), or a slip cordon (to that attack). Not saying both may not be called upon, but which do you think would be critical to wins..

Lower order batting over elite slipping, I've already made that clear. Because they are low scoring scenarios.

 

[kyear2]

Since Barry Richards came up in another poll, starting some reading about him. The below are just some interesting comments he's made about winning the county championship.

 

[Coronis]

Since Barry Richards came up in another poll, starting some reading about him. The below are just some interesting comments he's made about winning the county championship.

View attachment 40106

View attachment 40107


View attachment 40108

I mean, slight hyperbole from him ofc, Windies could’ve been the clear best fielders in the world in the past 15 years and still not have been competitive.

Obviously fielding is an important part of the game, but its also obvious that its tertiary to batting and bowling - which is why I would only pick a player with regards to their fielding if I thought of them as identical or nearly identical in their primary skill.

I don’t think that should be a controversial take.

 

[smash84]

I mean, slight hyperbole from him ofc, Windies could’ve been the clear best fielders in the world in the past 15 years and still not have been competitive.

Obviously fielding is an important part of the game, but its also obvious that its tertiary to batting and bowling - which is why I would only pick a player with regards to their fielding if I thought of them as identical or nearly identical in their primary skill.

I don’t think that should be a controversial take.

Your take isn't controversial. It's ridiculous how fielding is being bigged up as somehow equivalent to secondary skills.

 

[smash84]

This is the most backwards-ass thing I've read on the forum. In low scoring games, wickets are by definition not at a premium, runs are.

kyear2 will never answer this either.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, slight hyperbole from him ofc, Windies could’ve been the clear best fielders in the world in the past 15 years and still not have been competitive.

Obviously fielding is an important part of the game, but its also obvious that its tertiary to batting and bowling - which is why I would only pick a player with regards to their fielding if I thought of them as identical or nearly identical in their primary skill.

I don’t think that should be a controversial take.

And I fully agree, haven't ever said anything else.

There was a time where you included Hammond into your ATG team partially because of said slip fielding, Procter as well.

 

[kyear2]

Your take isn't controversial. It's ridiculous how fielding is being bigged up as somehow equivalent to secondary skills.

Because it is, just a very underrated one.

 

[kyear2]

kyear2 will never answer this either.

I have, I disagree.

The question lacks nuance and connected to a larger question.

Said question, was as I phrased it to Subz. For a team filled with stated ATG batsmen, and stated ATG bowlers who literally gained most of their wickets caught behind the wicket, between lower order batsmen and slip fielders, which would have a greater impact over the course of a series.


Not going to relitigate this as we obviously just see the game differently. But in what could only be a close series, to think that taking every possible catch isn't critically important when every wicket comes at a premium, is beyond me.

If every run matters, and it does, surely the ones the dropped catches cost must matter as well?

And genuine question, has no one noticed that the importance of lower order batsmen has always been inversely proportional to the strength / consistency of the teams batting?

This isn't difficult, but everyone's so entrenched in their corners, that you'll just refuse to meet in the middle ground. All these attributes are important.

 

[subshakerz]

kyear2 will never answer this either.

He hasn't he has danced around it for over a week. He knows we have him dead to rights here.

I have, I disagree.

The question lacks nuance and connected to a larger question.

Said question, was as I phrased it to Subz. For a team filled with stated ATG batsmen, and stated ATG bowlers who literally gained most of their wickets caught behind the wicket, between lower order batsmen and slip fielders, which would have a greater impact over the course of a series.

Not going to relitigate this as we obviously just see the game differently. But in what could only be a close series, to think that taking every possible catch isn't critically important when every wicket comes at a premium, is beyond me.

If every run matters, and it does, surely the ones the dropped catches cost must matter as well?

And genuine question, has no one noticed that the importance of lower order batsmen has always been inversely proportional to the strength / consistency of the teams batting?

This isn't difficult, but everyone's so entrenched in their corners, that you'll just refuse to meet in the middle ground. All these attributes are important.

Case in point. He deflects to slip fielding without actually addressing the main point, which is ATG bowling ARs being more preferable than a slightly better ATG pacer who is a tailender in an ATG low scoring scenario. The rest is just fluff and he pretending he can get away with this.

 

[subshakerz]

And I fully agree, haven't ever said anything else.

There was a time where you included Hammond into your ATG team partially because of said slip fielding, Procter as well.

Would you include Hammond because of slip fielding?

If not, who gets the edge in your ATG side because of slip fielding?

 

[shortpitched713]

The problem with making fielding one of the backbones of a team selection, is that aside for very obvious exceptions (Mohammad Yousef, etc), for the most part great batsmen are for the most part at least good fielders anyway. For a random example Michael Clarke vs Rahul Dravid is a whole lot of nothingness on that front, and I think a lot of comparisons between great specialist bats you'll end up with maybe 2-3 runs on average saved by one or the other over a match, not the giant 16 runs or something a pinnacle fielder could save over an average one.

Sobers as a first pick for all attributes is a good one, but one wonders how much fielding is even necessary to justify that. Whereas on the other hand, if you're centering an all-time team around Mark Waugh and Johnty Rhodes, then it's fair to raise some eyebrows on that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem with making fielding one of the backbones of a team selection, is that aside for very obvious exceptions (Mohammad Yousef, etc), for the most part great batsmen are for the most part at least good fielders anyway. For a random example Michael Clarke vs Rahul Dravid is a whole lot of nothingness on that front, and I think a lot of comparisons between great specialist bats you'll end up with maybe 2-3 runs on average saved by one or the other over a match, not the giant 16 runs or something a pinnacle fielder could save over an average one.

Tbf, that's a bad example because dravid is a more valuable test fielder than Clarke because he was a top tier slip fielder.

Overall point is well made though.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tbf, that's a bad example because dravid is a more valuable test fielder than Clarke because he was a top tier slip fielder.

Overall point is well made though.

Yeah Dravid was really good, but don't know if I'd put him as the "top tier". Certainly the best in the Indian team at the time. Prime Clarke was a gun in the infield though, with a deadly accurate arm.

This is kind of my point though. These guys are all generally pretty damn good. Tendulkar, Lara too. They are athletes with top tier reflexes and coordination and could transfer those talents from batting to fielding without difficulty, and even between fielding positions, as long as they bothered practicing the skill.

There are exceptions though, and they should be noted when applicable in comparisons, but besides for those obvious cases how exactly do we determine how many runs one batsman saves in the field compared to another, when it's so nebulous?