The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

Side 1 would have a better chance with ODIs. The fact that you need to take 20 wickets to win a test cannot be stressed enough, and I don't think Side 1 would take 20 wickets with regularity (compared to side 2).

This is pretty laughable. That side contains some of the best bowlers in history. They're going to take 20 wickets plenty of times.

 

[Days of Grace]

Just pointing out that speed merchants generally have a better SR.

Shane Bond
Rabada
Steyn
Waqar
Donald
Akhtar
Marshall

Just saying being fast is an advantage

To the point where they have will run through batting lineups on their day.

But they also go for more runs on their bad days. Generally speaking.

For those who watched both, who was quicker, mid-80s Hadlee or McGrath?

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is pretty laughable. That side contains some of the best bowlers in history. They're going to take 20 wickets plenty of times.

That's why he stipulated:

I don't think Side 1 would take 20 wickets with regularity (compared to side 2).

 

[Days of Grace]

Bat deep vs not bat deep



Bowlers average over 30 with the bat

Hutton
Richards
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Faulkner
Botham
Kapil


Bowlers average under 15 with the bat.

Hutton
Richards
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Murali
Garner
Ambrose
McGrath

A little misleading. I don’t think anyone is arguing for Botham, Faulkner and Kapil over Murali, McGrath and Garner. It’s no contest in terms of bowling ability.

But I can definitely get on board with selecting the best batsmen among bowlers with very similar averages who offer very similar skills. Once you get to 22.02 vs 20.99 it’s negligible. Why not choose the guy who averages 27 with the bat ahead of the bunny?

 

[Bolo]

This is pretty laughable. That side contains some of the best bowlers in history. They're going to take 20 wickets plenty of times.

Bit of a stretch to call sobers, botham, kapil and likely faulkner some of the best bowlers in history. I love me some deep batting, but the second side will destroy this one

 

[TheJediBrah]

Once you get to 22.02 vs 20.99 it’s negligible

heck no it's not. That seemingly small difference in bowling ability can make a huge difference in a game, much more than an extra 15-20 runs from a number 9-11 batsman who might not even be needed to bat in a meaningful situation.

 

[Burgey]

As far as McGrath vs Hadlee it's a no brainers imo. If you replaced Hadlee with pigeon in the 80s nz they'd be no real significant change in bowling strength but the batting depth would be significantly reduced. Place Hadlee in the all conquering oz team and again (imo) the bowling would remain the same but the batting would be even more over the top. Therefore, Hadlee for me in any world atg team over pretty much any other fast bowler.

What about the fact they virtually average the same but McGrath bowled in an era where batting averages went through the roof?

 

[Burgey]

Don't be obtuse. Surely there's better things to discuss than this or Tendulkar vs Lara v2000076? Or if you're feeling experiment it's time for Warne Vs Murali.

Yep, you’ve brought so much innovation to the forum....

 

[TheJediBrah]

What about the fact they virtually average the same but McGrath bowled in an era where batting averages went through the roof?

Not to mention playing half his games in Australia where I keep being told is easier for batting hence why players like Hayden have misleading averages

 

[trundler]

Yep, you’ve brought so much innovation to the forum....

How egregiously wrong. I, of course, birthed the revisionism thread precisely for takes like this. Off you go.

 

[kyear2]

heck no it's not. That seemingly small difference in bowling ability can make a huge difference in a game, much more than an extra 15-20 runs from a number 9-11 batsman who might not even be needed to bat in a meaningful situation.

Exactly this. Don't know why this bat deep thing is seemed so important there. In great / strong batting teams it doesn't make that significant an impact. Batting depth is much more important in weaker teams where they are looking for draws or trying to save the game. If you want to win games, pick the best bowlers, period, especially from positions 9 to 11. If you loose absolutely nothing, then sure, but that's hardly ever the case. If you have to say x is better, but..., go with x.

How many games did Australia loose because of McGrath's batting. The Windies because of Garner's. Both teams used Marshall and Warne at the no. 8 position and neither suffered. Both could bat when the situation dictated but more often than not it just didn't. So for s team that already has both Marshall and Warne, without the need for sacrificing anything, and if for instance you do choose Hadlee over McGrath, no need to go any further. Even Hadlee isn't required.

I've seen more marches lost through shoddy catching and big missed chances than poor tail batting. But that's never mentioned here probably because it can't be put into statguru

 

[Days of Grace]

We’re not talking about Australia’s batting, or how different bowlers complemented their own teams in a given era.

We’re selecting a world XI. Are you telling me that you would select a bowler averaging 5% better over a bowler whose batting was 30% better?

 

[a massive zebra]

Lol. If averages are a perfectly accurate indicator of bowling ability and 1 run in bowling average is massively impactful, then Joel Garner ****s all over Glenn McGrath.

P.S. I don't actually think this, just showing what a ridiculous premise it is.

 

[Bolo]

Exactly this. Don't know why this bat deep thing is seemed so important there. In great / strong batting teams it doesn't make that significant an impact. Batting depth is much more important in weaker teams where they are looking for draws or trying to save the game. If you want to win games, pick the best bowlers, period, especially from positions 9 to 11. If you loose absolutely nothing, then sure, but that's hardly ever the case. If you have to say x is better, but..., go with x.

How many games did Australia loose because of McGrath's batting. The Windies because of Garner's. Both teams used Marshall and Warne at the no. 8 position and neither suffered. Both could bat when the situation dictated but more often than not it just didn't. So for s team that already has both Marshall and Warne, without the need for sacrificing anything, and if for instance you do choose Hadlee over McGrath, no need to go any further. Even Hadlee isn't required.

I've seen more marches lost through shoddy catching and big missed chances than poor tail batting. But that's never mentioned here probably because it can't be put into statguru

WI and aus seldom needed extra runs because they were so far ahead. We assume an atg side will play another of similar quality, and then things get very tight.

For one practical example of how the tail being able to hold a bat counts, look at steyns 76? vs Aus. Most important series of his career, because modern rsa had never won a series vs aus. And that innings was the difference between a series win and loss. Much more important than any of his crazy sc bowling performances. Sure, it's rare. But steyn was a genuine tail ender (albeit not a horrible one), not someone with a claim to AR status.

 

[OverratedSanity]

We’re not talking about Australia’s batting, or how different bowlers complemented their own teams in a given era.

We’re selecting a world XI. Are you telling me that you would select a bowler averaging 5% better over a bowler whose batting was 30% better?

It's more about diminishing returns. Batting/bowling depth after a certain point wouldn't add a great deal of value especially if you're sacrificing a seemingly insignificant amount of quality from a player's primary role in the process. Where that point is is up to you, but it definitely exists.

 

[Bolo]

It's more about diminishing returns. Batting/bowling depth after a certain point wouldn't add a great deal of value especially if you're sacrificing a seemingly insignificant amount of quality from a player's primary role in the process. Where that point is is up to you, but it definitely exists.

Diminishing returns don't exist in batting, unless you factor draws or mismatches in. Not much of a concern for ATG vs ATG.

Definitely a thing for bowlers though- I'd rather have 1 McGrath and one ATG bat in an ATG team than 2 * pollock, although the pollocks would be much more valuable in a typical team.

 

[_00_deathscar]

This is pretty laughable. That side contains some of the best bowlers in history. They're going to take 20 wickets plenty of times.

Yea, compared to an attack with Venkatesh Prasad and Javagal Srinath, but not compared to this attack:
Murali
Garner
Ambrose
McGrath

...which was the point (and which I clearly stated in my post by stating 'compared to side 2').

The extra runs Side 1 would get you in most scenarios won't lead to a victory, but Side 2 will more regularly take 20 wickets in a test, which will win you more.

 

[_00_deathscar]

A little misleading. I don’t think anyone is arguing for Botham, Faulkner and Kapil over Murali, McGrath and Garner. It’s no contest in terms of bowling ability.

But I can definitely get on board with selecting the best batsmen among bowlers with very similar averages who offer very similar skills. Once you get to 22.02 vs 20.99 it’s negligible. Why not choose the guy who averages 27 with the bat ahead of the bunny?

Yea I think that example given is a little to extreme - I don't think anyone considers Kapil Dev one of the top bowlers of all time, fine though he was.
It's more Imran vs McGrath and Hadlee vs Ambrose, which is of course a lot closer, and more that you have to consider.

And again, sometimes it's just about balance too - I don't think you need 7-11 all who can bat as well as Imran/Pollock/Hadlee etc - but you probably need at least a couple in there (say between #7-#9) who can bat well enough at least, and maybe #10 and #11 can be complete duds (but top, top bowlers who have a very low average and very low strike rate).

E.g. your #10/11 should be two of Steyn, McGrath, Ambrose etc.
Pack your #7-9 with Imran, Hadlee, Wasim, Pollock etc.

Best of both worlds...

 

[srbhkshk]

It's more about diminishing returns. Batting/bowling depth after a certain point wouldn't add a great deal of value especially if you're sacrificing a seemingly insignificant amount of quality from a player's primary role in the process. Where that point is is up to you, but it definitely exists.

Batting does not have diminishing returns, especially on sporting pitches, maybe on a road.

 

[MrPrez]

We’re not talking about Australia’s batting, or how different bowlers complemented their own teams in a given era.

We’re selecting a world XI. Are you telling me that you would select a bowler averaging 5% better over a bowler whose batting was 30% better?

30% of what? 5% of what?

Chris Martin vs a bowler who is a 5% worse at bowling, and 30% better as a batsman? Chris Martin, easily.

Imran Khan vs the same thing? Imran loses out comfortably.

Generally, for a specialist bowler, ie averaging around 10-15, an extra 3-5 or so runs to the batting average is borderline inconsequential relative to the extra 5% bowling, imo.