Why is it viewed as more important

[centurymaker]

No one has milked victory in IND in 80s more than Kyear 2 . His entire hypothesis of playing in IND is based on a Test series win 41 years ago .

 

[Bolo.]

Quicks had more success because SEA countries in general have been better at cricket than Asian countries.

IND won in NZ ( 1969 ) , WI and ENG 1971 with a spin attack.

When England were rubbish in 90s , Mushtaq Ahmed used to torment them with spin in their home . Harbhajan nearly won IND test series in SA in 2010/11 if not for Kallis heroics in 3rd innings.

What do a handful of games have to do with general trends? Nobody says spin has never performed.

The Harbajan example is pretty poor by the way. Durban is a spinners pitch. Capetown was a spinners pitch in that era late in the game when he took all his wickets (no idea if this is still true). He got hammered on the pitch that doesn't help spin. Sounds condition dependent.

 

[centurymaker]

What do a handful of games have to do with general trends? Nobody says spin has never performed.

The Harbajan example is pretty poor by the way. Durban is a spinners pitch. Capetown was a spinners pitch in that era late in the game when he took all his wickets (no idea if this is still true). He got hammered on the pitch that doesn't help spin. Sounds condition dependent.

Same with the visiting pacers in the SC. They get the right conditions they perform. But no swing, no seam and no pace and they are totally toothless.

 

[Bolo.]

Same with the visiting pacers in the SC. They get the right conditions they perform. But no swing, no seam and no pace and they are totally toothless.

You are making a list and comparing it to just a spinning deck. That should give you an idea that pace works under more circumstances.

 

[peterhrt]

Part of what makes the bowlers successful are the slip fielders

Australian statistician Charles Davis's analysis of dropped catches showed that each missed chance in a Test match between 2008 and 2016 cost an average of 33 runs. 29% of slip chances were missed.

According to Benaud, Bob Simpson dropped only one slip catch during his entire Test career. He caught 111 (including one as a sub). Fielding standards have improved since the 1960s, which makes Simpson's drop percentage of 0.89% even more remarkable.

The average slip fielder now would be expected to drop 31 more catches than Simpson over his 63 matches (again including the one as sub), costing his side 1023 runs, or 16 runs per match, as well as probably converting a few wins into draws or defeats. In Simpson's case, slip catching was rather more than a tertiary skill.

 

[kyear2]

No, your intention was to say lower order batting doesn't really matter. Elite slip fielding does.

We've all made clear runs and wickets > elite catching.

Now you are going to comical lengths to suggest more runs from lower order bats won't affect a team being better.

Jesus Christ, are you stupid.

You've made clear absolutely noting.

First of all the elite catching also comes with an elite batsman, the same way the lower order runs comes with an elite bowler.

At this point you are literally just lying.

In actual every day matches, all are important, all 3 in equal measure. Because teams have flaws and utility players and all round cricketers to fill those voids.

Teams with weaker batting lineups depend heavier on lower order batting, but as I've often said, if you're relying on your lower order batting to bail you out repeatedly, you have bigger problems. But lower order batting can be essential to narrowing deficits, scratching out first innings leads or even saving a test on the last day. Jack Leach batting with Stokes or Ambrose and Walsh with Lara comes to mind.

Fifth bowlers are important in all scenarios except for the extremes when you're consistently blowing teams out, which hasn't been a feature of the game that often. They don't have to be all rounders, just good enough to cover some overs and don't get taken to the cleaners. Guys like Sobers and Kallis who've had multiple match winning spells are a special exception, but generally any wicket is a bonus.

A great cordon is not only essential, it's been a feature of the great teams of the modern era. And to those who thinks that the ball catches itself just take a look at any wicket montage featuring McGrath, Ambrose, the Windies attacks, Hadlee, Steyn et al and you'll see and hopefully appreciate the efforts of Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Hooper, Lara, Lloyd, Richardson, Crowe, Coney, Kallis, Smith and deVilliers. For any fast bowler they are invaluable and every single catch they take represents a wicket taken, every drop a missed opportunity. And that doesn't include what Dravid and Jayawardene meant for the spinners they caught for.

Within the context of the ATG matches, with the scaling of the talent, the value of both the 5th bowler and the 8th batsman are reduced. The same way there's expected diminished returns from the support batsmen, there's would be an equivalent impact on the lower order bats. Though while it must be said that Sobers had some of his best bowling performances in the various rest of the world tests that he participated in, his greatest value would undoubtedly be in the slip cordon taking chances from the quicks and spinner alike. In a series with a bowling attack compromising any combination of Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Hadlee and Warne, most of the wicket taking opportunities will be going to the cordon, significantly increasing it's value. How can I say this, that's where they all took the majority of their wickets during their respective careers. So yes, there's value there.

Where our differences occur though, is that I'm not dismissing anything. You're the one saying that the batting all rounders would be useless, or not used at all (and blaming me for forcing you to make that idiotic argument is just peak trolling). They still have to bowl and keep things quiet, help with the rotation. And you believe that slip catching has minimal value, if any, which is again beyond the pale for anyone who's ever watched a min of test cricket. I haven't said that lower order batting is useless, I never have.

Where we further disagree is that you believe that lower order batting is worth diminishing your bowling to achieve, I disagree. I also don't think it's worth compromising the batting to achieve a perfect cordon, that's the difference.
As I've said, in a ATG scenario, Hadlee is a different kettle of fish all together and it's a matter of preference (just talking bowling styles here). Now if you believe, as obviously you do, that Imran is better than Steyn and just as good as Hadlee, then fine. If one doesn't, then it can't make sense. That's it. But you get so asshurt that you just blow past reason and compromise and go straight to defcon 5.

In an ATG scenario where Imran for arguments sake averages 23 (for reference in 8 WSC matches he scored 127 runs from 8 innings), and Marshall and Warne is averaging 14 and 12, is it worth not playing your best bowlers?
It's contradictory and counter initiative to keep saying every run matters, but then say it's fine to diminish your bowling to achieve it. I've always been consistent about using these skills as tie breakers, not determinants to push one ahead of the other.

Since you have been heavy on the what if's and conjecture. What's more valuable, scoring 21 at the back of the innings or taking a blinder off their Bradman to dismiss him for 6, when he's been scoring heavily in the series.

Even to glance through the video of Steyn's test wickets shows how incredibly valuable Kallis was to his and the team's success, same for Waugh Jr and Ponting for McGrath and Australia's. To be dismissive of it because it doesn't fit into your single minded agenda is ridiculous, though sadly not surprising.

 

[kyear2]

Australian statistician Charles Davis's analysis of dropped catches showed that each missed chance in a Test match between 2008 and 2016 cost an average of 33 runs. 29% of slip chances were missed.

According to Benaud, Bob Simpson dropped only one slip catch during his entire Test career. He caught 111 (including one as a sub). Fielding standards have improved since the 1960s, which makes Simpson's drop percentage of 0.89% even more remarkable.

The average slip fielder now would be expected to drop 31 more catches than Simpson over his 63 matches (again including the one as sub), costing his side 1023 runs, or 16 runs per match, as well as probably converting a few wins into draws or defeats. In Simpson's case, slip catching was rather more than a tertiary skill.

Brilliant as always Sir.

Guys in that category, and there were very few in the history of the game were invaluable...

Hammond, Simpson, Waugh, Sobers, Kallis, Barlow, Hooper, Taylor, Richardson, Ponting, Botham, Chappell were infinitely invaluable to their teams.

I sincerely wonder if some here assign value just according to the players they liked or from watching the game.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah I disagree. I think in the vast majority of situations, everyone would prefer the specialist batsman to get more runs himself rather than staying not out on a lower score.

I was talking about them making the same amount of runs, sorry if that was unclear

 

[Bolo.]

Australian statistician Charles Davis's analysis of dropped catches showed that each missed chance in a Test match between 2008 and 2016 cost an average of 33 runs. 29% of slip chances were missed.

According to Benaud, Bob Simpson dropped only one slip catch during his entire Test career. He caught 111 (including one as a sub). Fielding standards have improved since the 1960s, which makes Simpson's drop percentage of 0.89% even more remarkable.

The average slip fielder now would be expected to drop 31 more catches than Simpson over his 63 matches (again including the one as sub), costing his side 1023 runs, or 16 runs per match, as well as probably converting a few wins into draws or defeats. In Simpson's case, slip catching was rather more than a tertiary skill.

1 drop seems suspiciously low to me. Is this based on what Benaud observed.

 

[peterhrt]

1 drop seems suspiciously low to me. Is this based on what Benaud observed.

Despite his reputation for being understated, Benaud did exaggerate at times. However he was present at more Test matches than anybody (playing and watching) and may well have been at virtually all Simpson's games.

 

[Coronis]

It definitely sounds like an anecdote tbh, “I only ever saw Simpson drop one chance”

 

[Bolo.]

Despite his reputation for being understated, Benaud did exaggerate at times. However he was present at more Test matches than anybody (playing and watching) and may well have been at virtually all Simpson's games.

It definitely sounds like an anecdote tbh, “I only ever saw Simpson drop one chance”

Ya, I'm sure he saw plenty of Simpson. But even if he isn't exaggerating on purpose, remembering seeing him drop one wouldn't be the same as actually dropping one. Also, not sure Davis and Benaud are defining a drop in the same way.

 

[trundler]

1 drop seems suspiciously low to me. Is this based on what Benaud observed.

Yeah, I'm filing that alongside the 120m hits in the late 19th century, under the title "apocryphal".

 

[subshakerz]

Jesus Christ, are you stupid.

You've made clear absolutely noting.

First of all the elite catching also comes with an elite batsman, the same way the lower order runs comes with an elite bowler.

At this point you are literally just lying.

In actual every day matches, all are important, all 3 in equal measure. Because teams have flaws and utility players and all round cricketers to fill those voids.

Teams with weaker batting lineups depend heavier on lower order batting, but as I've often said, if you're relying on your lower order batting to bail you out repeatedly, you have bigger problems. But lower order batting can be essential to narrowing deficits, scratching out first innings leads or even saving a test on the last day. Jack Leach batting with Stokes or Ambrose and Walsh with Lara comes to mind.

Fifth bowlers are important in all scenarios except for the extremes when you're consistently blowing teams out, which hasn't been a feature of the game that often. They don't have to be all rounders, just good enough to cover some overs and don't get taken to the cleaners. Guys like Sobers and Kallis who've had multiple match winning spells are a special exception, but generally any wicket is a bonus.

A great cordon is not only essential, it's been a feature of the great teams of the modern era. And to those who thinks that the ball catches itself just take a look at any wicket montage featuring McGrath, Ambrose, the Windies attacks, Hadlee, Steyn et al and you'll see and hopefully appreciate the efforts of Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Hooper, Lara, Lloyd, Richardson, Crowe, Coney, Kallis, Smith and deVilliers. For any fast bowler they are invaluable and every single catch they take represents a wicket taken, every drop a missed opportunity. And that doesn't include what Dravid and Jayawardene meant for the spinners they caught for.

Within the context of the ATG matches, with the scaling of the talent, the value of both the 5th bowler and the 8th batsman are reduced. The same way there's expected diminished returns from the support batsmen, there's would be an equivalent impact on the lower order bats. Though while it must be said that Sobers had some of his best bowling performances in the various rest of the world tests that he participated in, his greatest value would undoubtedly be in the slip cordon taking chances from the quicks and spinner alike. In a series with a bowling attack compromising any combination of Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Hadlee and Warne, most of the wicket taking opportunities will be going to the cordon, significantly increasing it's value. How can I say this, that's where they all took the majority of their wickets during their respective careers. So yes, there's value there.

Where our differences occur though, is that I'm not dismissing anything. You're the one saying that the batting all rounders would be useless, or not used at all (and blaming me for forcing you to make that idiotic argument is just peak trolling). They still have to bowl and keep things quiet, help with the rotation. And you believe that slip catching has minimal value, if any, which is again beyond the pale for anyone who's ever watched a min of test cricket. I haven't said that lower order batting is useless, I never have.

Where we further disagree is that you believe that lower order batting is worth diminishing your bowling to achieve, I disagree. I also don't think it's worth compromising the batting to achieve a perfect cordon, that's the difference.
As I've said, in a ATG scenario, Hadlee is a different kettle of fish all together and it's a matter of preference (just talking bowling styles here). Now if you believe, as obviously you do, that Imran is better than Steyn and just as good as Hadlee, then fine. If one doesn't, then it can't make sense. That's it. But you get so asshurt that you just blow past reason and compromise and go straight to defcon 5.

In an ATG scenario where Imran for arguments sake averages 23 (for reference in 8 WSC matches he scored 127 runs from 8 innings), and Marshall and Warne is averaging 14 and 12, is it worth not playing your best bowlers?
It's contradictory and counter initiative to keep saying every run matters, but then say it's fine to diminish your bowling to achieve it. I've always been consistent about using these skills as tie breakers, not determinants to push one ahead of the other.

Since you have been heavy on the what if's and conjecture. What's more valuable, scoring 21 at the back of the innings or taking a blinder off their Bradman to dismiss him for 6, when he's been scoring heavily in the series.

Even to glance through the video of Steyn's test wickets shows how incredibly valuable Kallis was to his and the team's success, same for Waugh Jr and Ponting for McGrath and Australia's. To be dismissive of it because it doesn't fit into your single minded agenda is ridiculous, though sadly not surprising.

Dude what's with this essay?

To say all three are equally important is just statistically impossible in my view. We disagree on the level of difference as I see elite catching as a tertiary skill.

You say a great cordon is essential but you would agree that this will be a tiebreaker for selecting between players of the same standing, no? I don't think I disagree much there as long as it is incredibly hard to separate them in their primary disciplines.

It would be interesting if you could point to batsmen you would select over others based on their elite slip catching aside from Sobers.

I wouldn't dispute with you on 5th bowlers except based on your insistence to use ATG scenarios that statistically reduce their practical use, as you concede.

What we genuinely disagree on is if 8th bats are more or less useful in ATG scenarios. I just can't see how that is the case when you admit these will be low scoring affairs when runs are a premium. You haven't come up with ANY counter to that yet except to dig in your heels and insist that a third pacer a rank or two below is preferable regardless of runs? Why is that the case?

You used Imran's batting stat in WSC when he was early career and that is unfair. Perhaps better to use his stats against WI when he averaged around 27/28 I believe. That is a very useful average to have in low scoring scenarios, enough to hang around and allow last wicket partnerships. Keep in mind that Imran will be averaging 27/28 when the average ATG batter aside from Bradman in the lineup will be lucky to average in the 40s against an opposition of four worldclass bowlers.

Finally, most of CW don't consider the gaps between the 6/7 top pacers to be that significant. You are on your own here where you consider Imran to be such a step down in bowling quality from Hadlee/Steyn that his batting is not sufficient to include him in the side. Just admit that there is a clear reasoning to do so but you disagree.

 

[kyear2]

I'm going to keep this short.

In a test match with only 4 bowlers being selected, with their primary roll being to bowl out the opposition, that will always be my primary criteria. The 4 that I believe that will be best suited to bowl together and form the best attack is the one I'm using. Hadlee would the the sole exception to that because of his sheer quality as a bowler, plus what he brings with the bat.

You and I disagree on that, so it makes no sense discussing or arguing further.

With regards to catching, for you to regard it as much less important of a skill than lower order batting shows once again that you argue players rather than points.
For your ATG argument, that an extra 15 - 20 runs at the end of the innings is worth more than taking the 4 catches that will come their way defies logic to me. Every catch taken is literally a wicket, which from the bowlers are more important than batsmen argument, should push wickets above runs. Not to mention that lower order batsmen are less consistent and can't be counted on for consistent production.

Anyways your only goal is to push your agenda, and reason escapes you when it comes to certain players so I wouldn't be engaging you further on this topic.

 

[subshakerz]

For your ATG argument, that an extra 15 - 20 runs at the end of the innings is worth more than taking the 4 catches that will come their way defies logic to me.

What are you referring to here with 4 catches?

 

[TheJediBrah]

And adding to this, I generally think people talk about not outs completely backwards.

It's not about "penalising" batsmen for staying not outs, rather giving due credit to batsmen who averaged the same, but scored more runs. I've never understood why there's always pushback on this tbh.

Because it gives you a less accurate judgement on who was the "better" batsman. Unless it's clear that a guy with more not outs did it by being selfish and taking less risks then you're basically just "rewarding" a worse player that got out more and/or often just one who batted higher in the order (which has some merit tbf)

Wouldn't surprise me if for most batsmen a majority of their not outs come in declarations or successful chases.

 

[ataraxia]

Eh I'm not sure you can count those sides as good. Each basically had one good batter and one good bowling all-rounder and a nice average support crew. It's wrong to call them good sides when all their success comes from one or two players.

Kyear suckered into liking this post

 

[ataraxia]

Slips hardly merit consideration compared to the other two, and this is coming from a poster who values them more than most do. A good 2nd-slip-to-pacers and 1st-slip-to-spinners might catch 90% of the ~2.2 chances that come to them a game, while an average one might only catch 65%, say. With the average batting average of 30, that comes out at saving about 17 runs a game. Peanuts. The savings are less still for other catchers.

>ignored

The average slip fielder now would be expected to drop 31 more catches than Simpson over his 63 matches (again including the one as sub), costing his side 1023 runs, or 16 runs per match, as well as probably converting a few wins into draws or defeats. In Simpson's case, slip catching was rather more than a tertiary skill.

>heart reacc

 

[CricAddict]

Jesus Christ, are you stupid.

You've made clear absolutely noting.

First of all the elite catching also comes with an elite batsman, the same way the lower order runs comes with an elite bowler.

At this point you are literally just lying.

In actual every day matches, all are important, all 3 in equal measure. Because teams have flaws and utility players and all round cricketers to fill those voids.

Teams with weaker batting lineups depend heavier on lower order batting, but as I've often said, if you're relying on your lower order batting to bail you out repeatedly, you have bigger problems. But lower order batting can be essential to narrowing deficits, scratching out first innings leads or even saving a test on the last day. Jack Leach batting with Stokes or Ambrose and Walsh with Lara comes to mind.

Fifth bowlers are important in all scenarios except for the extremes when you're consistently blowing teams out, which hasn't been a feature of the game that often. They don't have to be all rounders, just good enough to cover some overs and don't get taken to the cleaners. Guys like Sobers and Kallis who've had multiple match winning spells are a special exception, but generally any wicket is a bonus.

A great cordon is not only essential, it's been a feature of the great teams of the modern era. And to those who thinks that the ball catches itself just take a look at any wicket montage featuring McGrath, Ambrose, the Windies attacks, Hadlee, Steyn et al and you'll see and hopefully appreciate the efforts of Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Hooper, Lara, Lloyd, Richardson, Crowe, Coney, Kallis, Smith and deVilliers. For any fast bowler they are invaluable and every single catch they take represents a wicket taken, every drop a missed opportunity. And that doesn't include what Dravid and Jayawardene meant for the spinners they caught for.

Within the context of the ATG matches, with the scaling of the talent, the value of both the 5th bowler and the 8th batsman are reduced. The same way there's expected diminished returns from the support batsmen, there's would be an equivalent impact on the lower order bats. Though while it must be said that Sobers had some of his best bowling performances in the various rest of the world tests that he participated in, his greatest value would undoubtedly be in the slip cordon taking chances from the quicks and spinner alike. In a series with a bowling attack compromising any combination of Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Hadlee and Warne, most of the wicket taking opportunities will be going to the cordon, significantly increasing it's value. How can I say this, that's where they all took the majority of their wickets during their respective careers. So yes, there's value there.

Where our differences occur though, is that I'm not dismissing anything. You're the one saying that the batting all rounders would be useless, or not used at all (and blaming me for forcing you to make that idiotic argument is just peak trolling). They still have to bowl and keep things quiet, help with the rotation. And you believe that slip catching has minimal value, if any, which is again beyond the pale for anyone who's ever watched a min of test cricket. I haven't said that lower order batting is useless, I never have.

Where we further disagree is that you believe that lower order batting is worth diminishing your bowling to achieve, I disagree. I also don't think it's worth compromising the batting to achieve a perfect cordon, that's the difference.
As I've said, in a ATG scenario, Hadlee is a different kettle of fish all together and it's a matter of preference (just talking bowling styles here). Now if you believe, as obviously you do, that Imran is better than Steyn and just as good as Hadlee, then fine. If one doesn't, then it can't make sense. That's it. But you get so asshurt that you just blow past reason and compromise and go straight to defcon 5.

In an ATG scenario where Imran for arguments sake averages 23 (for reference in 8 WSC matches he scored 127 runs from 8 innings), and Marshall and Warne is averaging 14 and 12, is it worth not playing your best bowlers?
It's contradictory and counter initiative to keep saying every run matters, but then say it's fine to diminish your bowling to achieve it. I've always been consistent about using these skills as tie breakers, not determinants to push one ahead of the other.

Since you have been heavy on the what if's and conjecture. What's more valuable, scoring 21 at the back of the innings or taking a blinder off their Bradman to dismiss him for 6, when he's been scoring heavily in the series.

Even to glance through the video of Steyn's test wickets shows how incredibly valuable Kallis was to his and the team's success, same for Waugh Jr and Ponting for McGrath and Australia's. To be dismissive of it because it doesn't fit into your single minded agenda is ridiculous, though sadly not surprising.

Dude what's with this essay?

To say all three are equally important is just statistically impossible in my view. We disagree on the level of difference as I see elite catching as a tertiary skill.

You say a great cordon is essential but you would agree that this will be a tiebreaker for selecting between players of the same standing, no? I don't think I disagree much there as long as it is incredibly hard to separate them in their primary disciplines.

It would be interesting if you could point to batsmen you would select over others based on their elite slip catching aside from Sobers.

I wouldn't dispute with you on 5th bowlers except based on your insistence to use ATG scenarios that statistically reduce their practical use, as you concede.

What we genuinely disagree on is if 8th bats are more or less useful in ATG scenarios. I just can't see how that is the case when you admit these will be low scoring affairs when runs are a premium. You haven't come up with ANY counter to that yet except to dig in your heels and insist that a third pacer a rank or two below is preferable regardless of runs? Why is that the case?

You used Imran's batting stat in WSC when he was early career and that is unfair. Perhaps better to use his stats against WI when he averaged around 27/28 I believe. That is a very useful average to have in low scoring scenarios, enough to hang around and allow last wicket partnerships. Keep in mind that Imran will be averaging 27/28 when the average ATG batter aside from Bradman in the lineup will be lucky to average in the 40s against an opposition of four worldclass bowlers.

Finally, most of CW don't consider the gaps between the 6/7 top pacers to be that significant. You are on your own here where you consider Imran to be such a step down in bowling quality from Hadlee/Steyn that his batting is not sufficient to include him in the side. Just admit that there is a clear reasoning to do so but you disagree.

These posts are too short. Some elaboration will be helpful.