The value of ATG specialist bowlers vs bowling AR's/bowlers who can bat (picking the strongest all time XI)

[Cipher]

Hey everyone new poster here,

Just wanted your thoughts on the difference between picking an ATG specialist bowler vs a very good bowler who can bat.
Would it not be better to have bowlers who can get you an extra 20 runs with their batting
compared to an ATG bowler who might average getting out a top 6 bat for a few runs less?

I'll give an example to highlight this:

Bowling
Curtly Ambrose gets a 55 Avg Batsman out for 38 runs (69.4% 'discount factor')
Shaun Pollock gets a 55 Avg Batsman out for 42 runs (76.6 % 'discount factor')
So Curtly on average gets them out for 4 runs cheaper.
(Discount factor based off the post by Ankitj) cricketweb.net/forum/threads/how-valuable-is-that-wicket.48524

Batting
Ambrose averages 12.40 with the bat
Pollock averages 32.31 with the bat.
So Pollock on average makes almost 20 more runs than Ambrose per innings.

Based on these numbers Curtly would need to take 5 wickets in an innings to make up this difference in runs compared to Pollock (5 x 4=20).
Assuming that the other 3/4 bowlers in the team are also of high quality, its unlikely Ambrose gets that many himself anyway.

Obviously this is a very stats nerd way of looking at things & purely based on averages but;
Based on the numbers from Ankitj's post - players who could bowl very well vs top/middle order batsman & bat themselves such as
A.Davidson (68.3%) K.Miller (73.7%), Pollock (76.6%) R.Lindwall (77.8%) may potentially provide a higher positive value of runs than some of the ATG bowlers.

Note: I didn't mention Khan or Hadlee because you could say they are ATG bowlers in their own right but you could make the case for them based on this over Marshall/Mcgrath/Ambrose as well.

Obviously you can claim that a top tier Mcgrath/Ambrose type bowler is slightly more likely to get someone out than a 2nd tier Miller/Pollock/Lindwall but is that worth a notable difference in runs scored when batting? Especially considering runs in the tail may be more decisive when the top 7 are scoring less against star studded bowling attacks.

Interested to hear your points for or against!

 

[sayon basak]

In an ATG XI, I believe the gap in their primary discipline outshines the gap between their secondary discipline, assuming that the batting gap isn't way bigger.

 

[Cipher]

In an ATG XI, I believe the gap in their primary discipline outshines the gap between their secondary discipline.

Good point, I should have worded it as "picking a team most likely to win"
If you were picking an all time great XI you go for the best bowlers who deserve to be there just on their bowling.

I suppose I'm basing this on a team you choose for your life & the devil's team gets the best you don't pick.
E.g. I pick Khan, Hadlee, Miller as my pacers who can bat
whereas the devil decides to pick Marshall, McGrath & Ambrose as ATG specialist bowlers.

 

[sayon basak]

Good point, I should have worded it as "picking a team most likely to win"
If you were picking an all time great XI you go for the best bowlers who deserve to be there just on their bowling.

I suppose I'm basing this on a team you choose for your life & the devil's team gets the best you don't pick.
E.g. I pick Khan, Hadlee, Miller as my pacers who can bat
whereas the devil decides to pick Marshall, McGrath & Ambrose as ATG specialist bowlers.

That'll be a really even matchup ngl. Miller wasn't some bowler who could bat, he had the quality of a 40 averaging batter imo.

 

[Cipher]

That'll be a really even matchup ngl. Miller wasn't some bowler who could bat, he had the quality of a 40 averaging batter imo.

Yes I probably should have reworded it to bowling allrounders/bowlers who can bat.
Even then someone might take issue with Miller being called a bowling allrounder rather than a true all rounder.
I am already learning the importance of a correctly worded first post

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yes I probably should have reworded it to bowling allrounders/bowlers who can bat.
Even then someone might take issue with Miller being called a bowling allrounder rather than a true all rounder.
I am already learning the importance of a correctly worded first post

Can you do the same comparison with McGrath and Pollock?

 

[Bolo.]

Interested to hear your points for or against!

No. At least not in full text size. I'm quite fine with moneyballing this. I think it's a much better way of assessing players typically than 'muh feelz', and people vastly overrate small gains as bowling.

I don't particularly rate Pollock as a bowler., and think it may be a bit different as an equation to this. I don't think it's nearly as close as stats suggest between them.

 

[Cipher]

Can you do the same comparison with McGrath and Pollock?

Sure based on Ankitj's old post:
McGrath 69.8% discount factor vs 55 avg. Bat = 38.39 (38 rounded)
Pollock 76.6 % discount factor vs 55 avg. Bat = 42.13 (42 rounded)

So basically the same as Ambrose with a difference of 4.

McGrath averaged 7.36 with the bat
Pollock averaged 32.31 with the bat.

So a difference of 25 runs (rounded up).
McGrath needs to take 6 wickets vs Pollock's 6 to be near equal (24 runs).

Bear in mind this is only one set of stats, unfortunately I haven't seen anything from previous eras to say who is a giant killer other than this data set. It's quite possible that McGrath holds far more weight to the team than Pollock if he gets better players out more regularly which when you consider he got Lara out 15 times from 24 matches compared to Pollocks 3 times from 15, is a much better return.

I suppose I'm waiting for the stats nerds to show how much ATG bowlers really matter compared to others.

 

[Cipher]

No. At least not in full text size. I'm quite fine with moneyballing this. I think it's a much better way of assessing players typically than 'muh feelz', and people vastly overrate small gains as bowling.

I don't particularly rate Pollock as a bowler., and think it may be a bit different as an equation to this. I don't think it's nearly as close as stats suggest between them.

I agree with this. Despite their bowling averages being relatively close, I feel McGrath is more likely to get world class batsman out than Pollock.
But perhaps there is a much greater debate for guys like Hadlee & Imran to be in the team as they could also get the big fish out regularly while averaging plenty more than McGrath with the bat.

 

[DrWolverine]

Unpopular opinion : Richard Hadlee is the first name I pick among bowlers in my ATG test team

 

[smash84]

Unpopular opinion : Richard Hadlee is the first name I pick among bowlers in my ATG test team

What's unpopular about this?

 

[DrWolverine]

I don’t seen him being picked in many ATG teams whereas he would be first choice pick among bowlers

 

[Coronis]

I don’t seen him being picked in many ATG teams whereas he would be first choice pick among bowlers

I think there was somewhat of a split between Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee in a recent poll with all 3 getting decent amounts of votes. Hadlee lovers just a bit less vocal for whatever reason.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm all on board @Cipher . Have been preaching and drafting this way for ages. Some of the best bowlers of all time just so happen to be able to make big, meaningful contributions with the bat. It's a shame not to pick them up early.

In an AT XI, I go Imran at 8 and Hadlee at 9, and am more than happy to draft Shaun Pollock for one of those two spots in a draft. Until we get another all-rounder of that caliber, or multiple bowlers averaging like 16, 17 with the ball in the modern era, I don't see any good reason not to take them.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I agree with this. Despite their bowling averages being relatively close, I feel McGrath is more likely to get world class batsman out than Pollock.
But perhaps there is a much greater debate for guys like Hadlee & Imran to be in the team as they could also get the big fish out regularly while averaging plenty more than McGrath with the bat.

I include both Imran and Hadlee in my AT team as I feel their batting vastly outweighs McGrath's bowling advantage (don't think there's much of it against Hadlee anyways). But I think Pollock vs Ambrose is where things starts to crumble for me. Off the bat, think Pollock's stats are a bit soft. Which on itself isn't much of a problem when they are 32 and 23. I just feel Ambrose is more capable of just turning up and winning a game/Series than Pollock, especially in conditions unfamiliar and/or harder for bowling; and that the difference in primary quality will magnify and secondary diminish against the very Best. I do think it's a very good discussion that who's more valuable for an average/below average team.

 

[kyear2]

Good point, I should have worded it as "picking a team most likely to win"
If you were picking an all time great XI you go for the best bowlers who deserve to be there just on their bowling.

I suppose I'm basing this on a team you choose for your life & the devil's team gets the best you don't pick.
E.g. I pick Khan, Hadlee, Miller as my pacers who can bat
whereas the devil decides to pick Marshall, McGrath & Ambrose as ATG specialist bowlers.

I love these kinds of discussions, because it comes down to your personal philosophies on team building.

It's not where I go, but guys like @Johan and @Coronis just go with the best three bowlers, and trust them to figure it out, I go a bit more specialized with the best two opening bowlers, and who I believe would be the best option with the older ball.

Your opening bowler(s) are the most important member(s) of your team and it's their primary responsibility to take 20 wickets and to win you games. Batting is not something that's ever really been a factor in selecting teams, you go with your best guys. Think Sydney Barnes or McGrath would ever have been challenged because they couldn't bat? When we look at the Wisden team or the Cricinfo one, it was all about the best bowlers, but more importantly the associated write ups and discussions were about which bowlers would have complimented each other best, not that they needed more batting depth.

And you have to mention the obvious that you already have the best batsmen that's ever played the game including Sobers at 6, instead of the usual required down grade for the 5th bowler. It was even argued during the Cricinfo exercise that a pure keeper should have been selected over Gilly far less, and that's the route that the Wisden team took. With ATGs down to 6 and likely Gilly at 7, you can pick the best specialists and that's how it's always been done. You take the guys that you personally believe will give you the best chance to take 20 wickets.

It's also a double standard that the bowlers are all expected to have dual roles, while most here don't hold the same standard for the batsmen. We don't hear many calls for Kallis or Hammond even thought they both offer much more utility and versatility.

Plus any exercise that even possibly excludes McGrath, who for me the clear 2nd best bowler of all time with every intangible possible, is unacceptable and a non starter.

You pick your best bowlers, there's a reason those guys are lower order batsmen, they're inconsistent and just as likely to walk back with a pair, especially if the bowling is good enough to challenge the guys in the top 6.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with this. Despite their bowling averages being relatively close, I feel McGrath is more likely to get world class batsman out than Pollock.
But perhaps there is a much greater debate for guys like Hadlee & Imran to be in the team as they could also get the big fish out regularly while averaging plenty more than McGrath with the bat.

Most here has never seen Imran or Hadlee in their prime, but it was widely accepted and acknowledged back then that Hadlee was easily better than Imran, despite the very similar numbers.

Sure, some of it had to do with the trickeries that existed in Pakistan, but don't think that was all of it. The same way that Ambrose and McGrath were seen as better than Donald and well clear of Pollock.

And even then, Marshall was rated well ahead of both.

It has to do with how they performed in key moments, against the best bats, who generally took out the top batsmen from the opposing team's and all the little things that stats can't tell you. It's the skill sets, the modus operandi, how did they adapt to differing conditions or hostile environments. Did they have a plan B or withdrew into their shells if things were going bad, or just got shellacked.

So it's not just about "muh feelz", in a post this week, think it was Subz that said there had to be a reason that Donald wasn't seen as being quite on par with the Ambrose's, McGrath's and Akram's, well some might suggest that there's a reason why Hadlee and Imran weren't quite rated nearly as highly as the Marshall's and Lillee's of the era either.

I've never seem Hadlee live, but I imagine there's a reason why he's not in AT teams as his numbers suggest he should, even during that era. Where guys like Crowe, Gower, Richards and Border rate him below the other 2.

I still believe he's 3rd best btw, and easily so.

 

[Johan]

I feel like having great batting at 9-10-11 would be a waste, especially since I have both Marshall and Warne at 9 and 10, do I really need to get another guy who can bat? same with bowlers, after 4 elite bowlers, I'm fine with the fifth bowler being Sobers, why? because I don't think having a great bowler as the 5th one would even change much.

 

[Cipher]

I include both Imran and Hadlee in my AT team as I feel their batting vastly outweighs McGrath's bowling advantage (don't think there's much of it against Hadlee anyways). But I think Pollock vs Ambrose is where things starts to crumble for me. Off the bat, think Pollock's stats are a bit soft. Which on itself isn't much of a problem when they are 32 and 23. I just feel Ambrose is more capable of just turning up and winning a game/Series than Pollock, especially in conditions unfamiliar and/or harder for bowling; and that the difference in primary quality will magnify and secondary diminish against the very Best. I do think it's a very good discussion that who's more valuable for an average/below average team.

Fair point about Ambrose's match/series winning potential.
I also agree regarding the importance of primary quality against the very best & that the bowlers batting averages would diminish against top tier bowling. However, regarding the secondary quality of batting I would argue that every bowler is in the same boat with this.

So instead of Ambrose averaging 12 with the bat he might only manage 7 (basing this off his batting against australia from 1995 onwards). Of course looking how Imran Khan performed against the west indies he averaged 27.67 with the bat which is 10 runs lower than his average.
Interestingly, Hadlee actually performed better than his average against the West Indies 32.41 > 27.16.

It is quite possible that the average runs scored may be closer between bowling AR's & specialist bowlers against the best.
Although I do think there would still be a significant difference in runs contributed by the tail with AR's compared to specialists.
Even if we dropped Imran, Hadlee & Pollock's averages by 25% (an arbitrary but significant amount) they would still be scoring 28, 20, 24 runs respectively. Which in comparison to Ambrose, Mcgrath & Marshall (9, 6, 14) is still a difference of 43 runs.

I believe when teams are very evenly matched runs in the tail do make a difference.
Would this make me pick Pollock over ATG's? No. But I might consider Imran & Hadlee alongside Marshall.

 

[Cipher]

I love these kinds of discussions, because it comes down to your personal philosophies on team building.

Good post, you can definitely make the case for having the best bowlers & the variety in their bowling.
Certainly Barnes & McGrath were never in doubt with being selected, this is of course because they were the best bowlers of their country at the time. But when you now have a pool of bowlers who are close to their ability but can also bat on top of that I believe it is worthy of a discussion.

I suppose with the writeups & discussions regarding bowling styles/pairings that creates more interest than simply stating who averaged more with the bat. Additionally that being judged on the primary skill is more significant for their place in an ATG side as a bowler. My point isn't about who the best bowlers are, it's whether their place in the team creates a better chance of winning vs a very good bowler who can also bat.

My scenario is that your chosen XI plays the remaining best XI, if we exclude Bradman there would not be many runs difference between the 1st & 2nd XI's batting lineup. The runs the tailenders make could be the difference. I personally believe there is a plethora of top bowlers who can take 20 wickets of ATG batsman, Miller got Hutton out regularly, Khan with Gavaskar & Hadlee with G.Chappell & Border.
Even the best batting teams of history have been bowled out to standard bowling attacks, how would they fair against a star studded attack with no reprieve?

Not saying it's fair but I suppose there is the double standard because everyone bats but not everyone bowls. You lose effectiveness if your best bowlers are not bowling so the importance of a 6th/7th bowler in the side is smaller than runs that a number 8 bowler may contribute.
Side note: an interesting strategy would be to have a team of batsman who can bowl different styles to target specific weaknesses in a batsman's game, a swiss army knife of a team. However I suspect that just having specialist bowlers on would work better.

I mean that's fine if you like McGrath he is brilliant but realistically every player in an ATG team has a close replacement other than Bradman. I wouldn't immediately write off an approach just because it omits one player.

Disagree on the batting ability. Khan, Miller, Hadlee have good averages for a reason, they've scored hundreds against the best opposition they've played. Maybe they don't get as much as usual but they still make a lot more than Mcgrath, Ambrose & Lillee would. Especially if it was a series.