Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[smash84]

The alternative being picking significantly weaker bowlers in order to bat deep? I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of it.

The RSA example is there to demonstrate how much of a difference batting deep can make to results. The point is the results came in spite of not having players who would typically be preferred had they existed.

This

 

[TheJediBrah]

The alternative being picking significantly weaker bowlers in order to bat deep? I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of it..

then the argument becomes entirely surrounding the definition of "significantly weaker", and at what magnitude of weaker does it become the preferred option

The RSA example is there to demonstrate how much of a difference batting deep can make to results. The point is the results came in spite of not having players who would typically be preferred had they existed.

No one ever disagreed with this. Of course batting deeper is going to help when it's your clearly best alternative due to available talent.

 

[Bolo]

I get that, but batting deep effects more than just the bowlers, it effects the choice to have a batting all rounder in the top 6, or not. It effects what you expect or want from a wicket keeper. And it influences bowling choices.

For me it is all part of the mix to find the best team for most scenarios. At some points sacrifices have to be made for batting and bowling, at some points they don't.

It's exactly the same argument on the wk actually. People just recognise the importance more. Possibly justifiably. A mediocre keeper gets it wrong a whole lot less than a mediocre bowler. Still, a keeper is keeping the whole game, while a bowler only bowls 20%.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd say having a quality keeper is even more important than the bowlers. If you're talking about an Andy Flower or Rahul Dravid who's going to be dropping catches and missing stumpings on a daily basis it's going to cost you a lot more overall than if you were to pick a specialist keeper who averages 20 runs lower per innings IMO.

(Probably not really relevant to the ATG side of the discussion because your genuine keepers like Dhoni, Gilchrist etc. are just as good bats anyway)

 

[smash84]

I'd say having a quality keeper is even more important than the bowlers. If you're talking about an Andy Flower or Rahul Dravid who's going to be dropping catches and missing stumpings on a daily basis it's going to cost you a lot more overall than if you were to pick a specialist keeper who averages 20 runs lower per innings IMO.

(Probably not really relevant to the ATG side of the discussion because your genuine keepers like Dhoni, Gilchrist etc. are just as good bats anyway)

Dhoni is not a very good test batsman though.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's exactly the same argument on the wk actually. People just recognise the importance more. Possibly justifiably. A mediocre keeper gets it wrong a whole lot less than a mediocre bowler. Still, a keeper is keeping the whole game, while a bowler only bowls 20%.

It is the same for the batting allrounder in the top 6 as against a batsman too. And people recognise the importance there too. Bowling is the last bastion of getting clarity on the debate. But England, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and South Africa have all seen it done in various times since the 1980's.

Hesson pushed Sodhi to work on his batting, saved a test (enabling a series win). He has pushed Santner to work on his, did well finally at home in the limited overs stuff. Brought in CDG as an allrounder when most thought he was a batsman, and he has paid dividends in tests with his batting too.

For Australia, it may be back in the time of Miller, Benaud, Davidson and Lindwall. Red Hill will probably correct me that this wasn't the case at all. But they defintely did try Wayne Phillips keeping and Greg Mathews and Steve Waugh in the 1980's to try and get out of their slump. Varying degrees of success for Greg and Steve, not so good for Wayne. They also played Bevan in place of a bowler to shoulder Mark Taylor's batting slump in the 1990's.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dhoni is not a very good test batsman though.

ok but you get the point. This is why I never liked the idea of having Dravid as keeper, even in ODIs, though I know there wasn't exactly much to choose from back then (Ratra, Mongia, MSK Prasad, Dighe?).

 

[Daemon]

ok but you get the point. This is why I never liked the idea of having Dravid as keeper, even in ODIs, though I know there wasn't exactly much to choose from back then (Ratra, Mongia, MSK Prasad, Dighe?).

I don't think India ever started a Test match with him as the keeper. Was exclusively an ODI thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think India ever started a Test match with him as the keeper. Was exclusively an ODI thing.

Yeah I know, I meant I wasn't a supporter of it even though it was ODIs

 

[Daemon]

Yeah I know, I meant I wasn't a supporter of it even though it was ODIs

"even in ODIs" heavily implies that you thought he did it in Tests as well. Do not bother replying because I'm right and I will hear nothing else on the matter.

Yet another emphatic win for Daemon.

 

[Bolo]

I'd say having a quality keeper is even more important than the bowlers. If you're talking about an Andy Flower or Rahul Dravid who's going to be dropping catches and missing stumpings on a daily basis it's going to cost you a lot more overall than if you were to pick a specialist keeper who averages 20 runs lower per innings IMO.

(Probably not really relevant to the ATG side of the discussion because your genuine keepers like Dhoni, Gilchrist etc. are just as good bats anyway)

Bringing in the really poor keepers is probably a step too far- the equivalent of suggesting we put Shane Watson into an atg side as a specialist bowler so we can bat deep.

What about Holding and Gilchrist on one team vs Pollock and Knott on another? Do you lose more on the bowling side or the keeping?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

"even in ODIs" heavily implies that you thought he did it in Tests as well. Do not bother replying because I'm right and I will hear nothing else on the matter.

Yet another emphatic win for Daemon.

It is actually his use of commas that makes your sentiment right Daemon, not what is between them :P

 

[Daemon]

It is actually his use of commas that makes you right Daemon, not what is between them :P

Apologies, English is not my first language

 

[TheJediBrah]

"even in ODIs" heavily implies that you thought he did it in Tests as well. Do not bother replying because I'm right and I will hear nothing else on the matter.

Yet another emphatic win for Daemon.

So's your face

Bringing in the really poor keepers is probably a step too far- the equivalent of suggesting we put Shane Watson into an atg side as a specialist bowler so we can bat deep.

What about Holding and Gilchrist on one team vs Pollock and Knott on another? Do you lose more on the bowling side or the keeping?

Using mathematical justification I'd bet we could "prove" that Shane Watson would be preferable to Glenn McGrath in an ATG side tbh

 

[Daemon]

So's your face

Why yes my face is indeed an emphatic win

 

[Bolo]

There is a hair width seperating Hadlee and McGrath. I doubt McGrath would pick up more wickets than Hadlee- Hadlee managed more per match at a fractionally better strike rate in a slower era. McGrath might earn them the tiniest bit cheaper than Hadlee, but unless you think McGrath would have averaged in the teens in Hadlee's era, the extra runs Hadlee brings with the bat is going to exceed the runs McGrath saves with the ball.

Did anyone arguing in favour of McGrath over Hadlee ever address this?

Literally any other atg substitution I'd accept the argument for to some degree. Prioritise variety over quality, batting deep or not, picking one style over another etc. - it all comes down to preference to some extent.

But McGrath over Hadlee in the context of this comment just seems incorrect given the fact that they are so similar in style.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did anyone arguing in favour of McGrath over Hadlee ever address this?

Literally any other atg substitution I'd accept the argument for to some degree. Prioritise variety over quality, batting deep or not, picking one style over another etc. - it all comes down to preference to some extent.

But McGrath over Hadlee in the context of this comment just seems incorrect given the fact that they are so similar in style.

Well yeah it heavily depends on how you rate them, comparatively. If you think Hadlee is just as good as McGrath, or only infinitesimally less, then preferring him is a sensible choice.

I think McGrath is sufficiently superior to have him ahead if it was a choice between the 2 (depending on the make-up of the rest of the team).

 

[Bolo]

Well yeah it heavily depends on how you rate them, comparatively. If you think Hadlee is just as good as McGrath, or only infinitesimally less, then preferring him is a sensible choice.

I think McGrath is sufficiently superior to have him ahead if it was a choice between the 2 (depending on the make-up of the rest of the team).

You haven't addressed the quoted comment though. How would he outperform Hadlee?

 

[TheJediBrah]

You haven't addressed the quoted comment though. How would he outperform Hadlee?

Purely speculation obviously, but by taking slightly more wickets at a slightly better average.

 

[Bolo]

Purely speculation obviously, but by taking slightly more wickets at a slightly better average.

How do you get to the more wickets conclusion considering Hadlee was well ahead on strike rate considering the era and had a proven capacity for bowling a ton of overs?