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

[The Sean]

What the **** is “sealed his place in unadulterated subjectivity” supposed to mean?

What absolute melonhead wrote that?

If you click on the text you'll see they are four different excerpts, not a single piece. It just looks like one document as it has all been pasted together. "Sealed his place in" is the end of one excerpt, and then "unadulterated subjectivity" the start of another.

 

[Coronis]

If you click on the text you'll see they are four different excerpts, not a single piece. It just looks like one document as it has all been pasted together. "Sealed his place in" is the end of one excerpt, and then "unadulterated subjectivity" the start of another.

Well now I just feel silly.

 

[kyear2]

There's quite a bit wrong with that, and I'm not going to do point by point because the common theme with you is to always beat down strawmen, and ignore the crux of any argument you are confronted with.



Refute this point of mine, the one where I'm talking about actual runs, and you'll realize you're simply not making up those runs. I'm being very generous with those figures too. No way second and third bowler choices (all candidates of whom are averaging within about a run and a half or less of one another) are making up the batting runs difference.

It's okay that you think Imran was a cheater, and shouldn't take a place among the ATG. Just say it that way. Otherwise there's no way you can't admit he's not a unique player to combine that level of bowling and batting, period. It's not at all obvious that he isn't among the best choices to be number 8 on an all-time XI. You're having to appeal to magical subjective qualities asides from runs and wickets to do so. It's pathetic.

So basically everyone who's not chosen Imran is pathetic.

Your ATG team pace bowling trio

In your top all-time XI, who are the pace bowlers? (I've tried to make the poll uncluttersome and fairly direct. If your preferred option (Barnes, Lillee, etc.) isn't on there, for the sake of this thread please choose the next best and complain in the replies.)

www.cricketweb.net

In a thread that was started specifically to prove me wrong, that unlike many others, actually had a full representative voting bloc and high participation. And before the forum devolved in the quite toxic and siloed place it is today.

The purpose was clear, taking batting into consideration, what was the best possible AT bowling attack, our defacto vote for AT attack. Of the 55 votes cast, Imran was tied for 4th with 1/3 of the vote. In fact McGrath and Hadlee are both close to doubling up Imran and Wasim's vote total.

I wanted to check to see if you voted,which you did, strangely enough for Pigeon, and also made this strange declaration on page two of the thread.

So, it seems like a consensus for #batdeep among CW here.

Throw in Warne at XI, and it would be an absolutely stupendous batting tail.

Will have to check to see if you chimed in there after, but at that point you seemed quite open to accepting that result of the poll.

But while #batdeep has the most vocal of proponents, it's not exactly the consensus that you and other believe it to be.

Not only did Imran receive only 17 out of 55 votes, only 9 forum members voted for the bat deep combination of Marshall, Hadlee and Imran, 9.

So while it may be super obvious to you, or @Bolo. who I've noticed is lecturing me below, many just want to choose the bowlers who we believe will work better together and give the team the best chance of bowling out the opposition.

And the notion that they're pathetic because that's their philosophy is crazy. The crazy thing is that of all the All Time World XIs ever constructed, there's literally never been one, not by magazines, pundits, historians, former players, writers, commentators, not one that comprised of Hadlee and Imran. And I have scoured the interwebs, but according to you, they weren't building teams trying to win, only you are. Or is it that they just don't understand the game as well as you do?

Imran brings a lot to a team, yes his batting is valuable and as a bowler he's always in the general discussion, even if not the final short list for everyone. But you also ignore or refuse to acknowledge the obvious marks against him, or why others would even think of going with the best attack, considering it's their jobs to take 20 wickets and all.

It's not a secret that there's always been two spots in my XI that's never been locked down, the 3rd pacer and 2nd opener. And yes it's a toss up between Wasim, Hadlee, Imran and Steyn, and each have their advantages, and I can see the argument for Imran. But 1) My openers are fully locked in, give me the two greatest bowlers ever who compliment each other, are from different eras and are not only proven winners, but champions and are ridiculously clutch. And no one's mentioned, who's the best option to bowl against the wind as Marshall will get his choice of ends. He just makes roo much sense to me. And 2) There's a reason why Wasim makes so many of these things above said Imran, including by the guys who played with and against both, so that's where I lean (along with the other reasons given).

 

[smash84]

This is just ignorance on a elevated level, and proof that some here, thankfully not the majority, base their opinions and views based on their favorite players and not the other way around.

So I guess the reason why Wasim lost out on so many wickets or that Pakistan literally dropped that match and the series to Australia last year was because they didn't train enough?

That's just idiocy. Yes training and practice is required just as it is for batting or bowling, but you can't train a Waugh, Sobers, Hooper, Hammond or any of the greats.

It is considerably easier to train up lower order batsmen to a serviceable label than to turn a Chanderpaul into a Richardson at slip. They're specialist positions, that's why Kohli doesn't get close to chances that Waugh routinely took.

Warne was trained to be in the slips and he wasn't nearly good enough and not nearly as good as Hayden who replaced him during his ban.

You have posted your fair share of nonsense on the forum over the decades in service of Imran, but this one is definitely in contention for the worst.
Not only is it factually incorrect and goes against what every decent pundit, writer, former player or historian would and have ever espoused, it's one sure fire way to lose test matches. And again, all in service to one single player to prove a point.

And the equally idiotic notion that catching is a tertiary skill when it's equally if not (and likely) more important than lower order batting, and a skill by which players have not only been selected, but retained their places in teams based on, is just that...

Simpson earned his selection based on his catching, Sobers retained his, Hooper did as well, and way longer than his batting dictated. So players are selected for test duty based on tertiary duties now?

Everytime Khawaja dropped a catch, Australia lost the match or the opportunity to, in the BGT, didn't he practice enough?

The notion that you can take just anyone and drop them into a slip cordon and they have become elite is like saying you can take anyone and train them to become Tendulkar. It requires patience, instincts, reflexes and soft hands and technique.

If everyone could have been Mark Waugh, everyone would have been. But I get it, it goes against your agenda, so you have to go there.

I've asked you this before.

1984 Windies or 2002 Australia, if given the opportunity, and since it only takes practice, would they trade out their slip cordons to receive Imran & Pollock batting performances in their tail?

Let me be specific, would they sacrifice their elite slip cordons for a higher producing 8 and 9? Increase Marshall's and Holding's batting average but take away their cordon's abilities?

I can without any doubt guarantee you that neither would.

And as usual you can't help but be dishonest, but of course....

I've never disregarded secondary skills, I've said it shouldn't be the basis or selection, the same way I've said for slip fielding. A factor for both yes, bur definitely not the primary basis for selection. But as usual you see it as a personally attack on Imran, somgou.come out firing.

God, are you that dense and stupid or do you pretend that you are?

I am not even sure where to begin answering this drivel.

As @shortpitched713 mentioned, you never answer the damned question and just keep creating strawmen.

 

[kyear2]

Why else would you justify batting deep if not for runs scored? It's not lazy at all, it's just the plain simple reason you would do it.

How many runs an innings do you think your bowlers of Marshall, McGrath, Warne & Wasim save compared to my team of Marshall, Hadlee, Warne & Khan? Or more simply McGrath & Wasim vs Hadlee & Khan? Personally I think Wasim & Khan cancel each other out. Hadlee & McGrath are pretty close too, but for your sake lets say McGrath pips Hadlee by getting out the top 7 bats at about 3 runs less per wicket. Which aligns with Ankitj's old post. Hadlee is still scoring on average 20 runs more than McGrath an innings. So unless McGrath is taking 7 wickets compared to Hadlee's 7 the trade off is better to have Hadlee.

Yeah of course, people do have a minimum threshold of what the best bowlers should be in an ATG XI. Botham & Miller don't meet it but it was more of a fun exercise to see how much importance people put on the primary skill of bowling & whether good batting could bridge that gap. I wouldn't choose them as my best 2 bowlers either as you've said the opening bowlers are probably the most important players in the side. Which is why I still have Marshall (number 1 bowler) & Hadlee (number 3 bowler imo), I've got one of the best 2 spinners ever in Warne. And then my 4th bowler/1st change (Imran) is still one of the best ever but I value the trade off that his runs provide over the slightly better ranked bowlers.

If you can find that thread I would be glad to read it.

The difference with my selections are that they end up being the 8th & 9th batter not the 11th. Sure if I was picking Jaques Kallis as my 11th over McGrath for my bowling that would be crazy because I wouldn't be confident at all that with him as the bowling leader we would take 20 wickets.

You'll probably see how I've chosen my batsman later in the thread. I guess when you talk about balancing the primary/auxiliary need that's what I've done with my bowlers. I've made sure to have the best 2 bowlers in their style, my 3rd bowler Hadlee is in the top 3 (can bat decently) & then my 4th is still very good but covers the balance well by being a decent bat as well.

I've used the same approach with my batsman in some sense. I wanted to have Bradman, Tendulkar & Sobers in there no matter what due to their primary skill + what sobers offers as an AR. Then the remaining 3 was decided on that two of them must be top order batsman (Hobbs & Richards) & that hopefully the last is a middle order bat (Smith). I lucked out on Sobers, Viv & Smith being top class fielders. But if Viv & Smith weren't maybe I would reconsider my selections for those final 2 prioritised batsman.

You asked for the thread...

Your ATG team pace bowling trio

In your top all-time XI, who are the pace bowlers? (I've tried to make the poll uncluttersome and fairly direct. If your preferred option (Barnes, Lillee, etc.) isn't on there, for the sake of this thread please choose the next best and complain in the replies.)

www.cricketweb.net

And the current voting situation.

 

[kyear2]

What the **** is “sealed his place in unadulterated subjectivity” supposed to mean?

What absolute melonhead wrote that?

I was so very lost.

Those are two completely different clippings, I'll try to space them a little better, but they're also separate attachments, so.....

 

[shortpitched713]

So basically everyone who's not chosen Imran is pathetic

No, those who aren't honest about their reasons are. Claiming it's because you don't really respect lower order batting runs, when you actually are just picking and choosing which runs you do feel count and matter. And claiming it's about bowling all-rounders, when it's pretty specifically about Imran for you.

Which is fine, just don't expect everyone else to be taken in and not see it for what it is. I'll never claim that #batdeep is the only, valid way. But no one's made an objective refutation of it. Even your your attempt is argumentum ad populum. It doesn't actually make an argument as to where the run difference is being made up, which last I checked is what determines cricket matches.

 

[Bolo.]

So basically everyone who's not chosen Imran is pathetic.

Your ATG team pace bowling trio

In your top all-time XI, who are the pace bowlers? (I've tried to make the poll uncluttersome and fairly direct. If your preferred option (Barnes, Lillee, etc.) isn't on there, for the sake of this thread please choose the next best and complain in the replies.)

www.cricketweb.net

In a thread that was started specifically to prove me wrong, that unlike many others, actually had a full representative voting bloc and high participation. And before the forum devolved in the quite toxic and siloed place it is today.

The purpose was clear, taking batting into consideration, what was the best possible AT bowling attack, our defacto vote for AT attack. Of the 55 votes cast, Imran was tied for 4th with 1/3 of the vote. In fact McGrath and Hadlee are both close to doubling up Imran and Wasim's vote total.

I wanted to check to see if you voted,which you did, strangely enough for Pigeon, and also made this strange declaration on page two of the thread.



Will have to check to see if you chimed in there after, but at that point you seemed quite open to accepting that result of the poll.

But while #batdeep has the most vocal of proponents, it's not exactly the consensus that you and other believe it to be.

Not only did Imran receive only 17 out of 55 votes, only 9 forum members voted for the bat deep combination of Marshall, Hadlee and Imran, 9.

So while it may be super obvious to you, or @Bolo. who I've noticed is lecturing me below, many just want to choose the bowlers who we believe will work better together and give the team the best chance of bowling out the opposition.

And the notion that they're pathetic because that's their philosophy is crazy. The crazy thing is that of all the All Time World XIs ever constructed, there's literally never been one, not by magazines, pundits, historians, former players, writers, commentators, not one that comprised of Hadlee and Imran. And I have scoured the interwebs, but according to you, they weren't building teams trying to win, only you are. Or is it that they just don't understand the game as well as you do?

Imran brings a lot to a team, yes his batting is valuable and as a bowler he's always in the general discussion, even if not the final short list for everyone. But you also ignore or refuse to acknowledge the obvious marks against him, or why others would even think of going with the best attack, considering it's their jobs to take 20 wickets and all.

It's not a secret that there's always been two spots in my XI that's never been locked down, the 3rd pacer and 2nd opener. And yes it's a toss up between Wasim, Hadlee, Imran and Steyn, and each have their advantages, and I can see the argument for Imran. But 1) My openers are fully locked in, give me the two greatest bowlers ever who compliment each other, are from different eras and are not only proven winners, but champions and are ridiculously clutch. And no one's mentioned, who's the best option to bowl against the wind as Marshall will get his choice of ends. He just makes roo much sense to me. And 2) There's a reason why Wasim makes so many of these things above said Imran, including by the guys who played with and against both, so that's where I lean (along with the other reasons given).

Do you pick the hypothetical Ambrose Lara combo over a better bowler. Yes or no?

If yes, you are fine with trading between disciplines. Just say that you don't like the trades that actually existed.

 

[kyear2]

God, are you that dense and stupid or do you pretend that you are?

I am not even sure where to begin answering this drivel.

I was responding to what you literally said, and as you're proving a little slow today, I actually highlighted the part I was responding to.

To remind you, I was responding to the unadulterated nonsense you posted about cathing not needing to be a consideration when selecting a team, a) because you can just train them up and b) it's not that important.

As I said, not only has that been disproven by any metric you could possibly conjure up, statistical, anecdotal, team success, it also genuinely makes me wonder if you've ever watched the sport.

 

[smash84]

I was responding to what you literally said, and as you're proving a little slow today, I actually highlighted the part I was responding to.

To remind you, I was responding to the unadulterated nonsense you posted about cathing not needing to be a consideration when selecting a team, a) because you can just train them up and b) it's not that important.

As I said, not only has that been disproven by any metric you could possibly conjure up, statistical, anecdotal, team success, it also genuinely makes me wonder if you've ever watched the sport.

No, you are an idiot because you highlighted one small part, and as usual, probably didn't read anything below it. I provided explicit examples of South African and Australian systems and as usual you chose to ignore them. You need competent fielders to win matches not a team of 11 Jonty Rhodes. You don't even need 2 or 3 Mark Waughs to be a top team. Even without Mark Waugh Australia won plenty enough. Even England and New Zealand and Sri Lanka provide decent enough fielding. Only Pakistan has been bad because the system of fielding has not been present at the grassroots.

So yes, all the drivel that you posted is just that....drivel. Try addressing the point about systems.

Don't give me stupid examples like Pakistan dropping catches and losing matches means that you need to select a team based on catching in the slips. Let's select top 11 gymnasts in the world and pack the slip cordon. Those guys can't bat or bowl but they can catch like a circus monkey. Jeez.......

And giving example of Carl Hooper for what? The guy became **** at batting and bowling towards the second half of his career. How did his fielding help the WI then?

And if Shane Warne was or was not as good as Hayden, so what? He was good enough to grab a very high number of chances including some amazing ones. That is all that matters. He doesn't have to be as good as Hayden. Hayden isn't replacing him in the team. And Hayden is the perfect example the guy was kicked out of the team when his batting suffered. Nobody kept him in because he could field in the slips. So yeah, your point of fielding being as important as batting or bowling is BS.

 

[kyear2]

No, those who aren't honest about their reasons are. Claiming it's because you don't really respect lower order batting runs, when you actually are just picking and choosing which runs you do feel count and matter. And claiming it's about bowling all-rounders, when it's pretty specifically about Imran for you.

Which is fine, just don't expect everyone else to be taken in and not see it for what it is. I'll never claim that #batdeep is the only, valid way. But no one's made an objective refutation of it. Even your your attempt is argumentum ad populum. It doesn't actually make an argument as to where the run difference is being made up, which last I checked is what determines cricket matches.

Dear God, why are you this inherently dishonest.

Where have I said I don't "respect" lower order runs, runs are ****ing runs. The rest of your post, as is the norm, is utter bullshit.

The problem for you and especially Smali is that everything you say and do about the sport revolves around one player, so the projection would be the same for everyone as well I imagine.

What I don't think you're honestly capable of grasping is that, you don't have to make up the run difference, and winning matches is just as much, if not more about taking 20 wickets.

I mentioned that I have never seen anywhere, like literally anywhere, an XI that included Imran and Hadlee.

If it is so unbelievably a no brainier, how is it that the #batdeep squad on CW are the only ones to see it that way?

There have been decades of team selection since these guys retired, even on CW it's the minority for crying out loud.

But the Crowe's, Swanton's, Gower's, CMJ's, all the guys who did Wisden's team, the Cricinfo's effort, everyone who's ever drafted a team is wrong, and you are right?

So to be clear, for most it's not about making up runs, it's been about selecting who you believe is best suited to bowl out the opposition, as quickly and for as little runs as possible. Yes there's a balance that comes into it, and for a tie breaker for some they can go a different direction. But to believe that the only logical conclusion is one that's never been reached, and as such everyone else, including guys who have actually played the game at the highest level or covered it for decades are wrong, speaks more about you than anything else.

I was reading over the thread for the best bowling trio and I laid out pros and cons for everyone vying for that 3rd and only open spot, and yes, while Imran rates first among the candidates for batting, he's also rated last among them as bowlers. Surely you can see how that isn't a straight forward decision.

 

[smash84]

The problem for you and especially Smali is that everything you say and do about the sport revolves around one player, so the projection would be the same for everyone as well I imagine.

, first it was me, and subz. Then it was me and subz and "ORS". Now its me, subz, "ORS", and shortpitched.

The world is against you.

And it was you who made outrageous comments like "Richie Benaud is racist" because he didn't choose your favorite player in his team.

Interestingly you don't much refer to Richie's team which is arguably the greatest put together by an expert

 

[subshakerz]

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.

You don't need batting that deep.

 

[Johan]

what the **** is going on here? this is some powerscaling debates length posts.

 

[kyear2]

No, you are an idiot because you highlighted one small part, and as usual, probably didn't read anything below it. I provided explicit examples of South African and Australian systems and as usual you chose to ignore them. You need competent fielders to win matches not a team of 11 Jonty Rhodes. You don't even need 2 or 3 Mark Waughs to be a top team. Even without Mark Waugh Australia won plenty enough. Even England and New Zealand and Sri Lanka provide decent enough fielding. Only Pakistan has been bad because the system of fielding has not been present at the grassroots.

So yes, all the drivel that you posted is just that....drivel. Try addressing the point about systems.

Don't give me stupid examples like Pakistan dropping catches and losing matches means that you need to select a team based on catching in the slips. Let's select top 11 gymnasts in the world and pack the slip cordon. Those guys can't bat or bowl but they can catch like a circus monkey. Jeez.......

And giving example of Carl Hooper for what? The guy became **** at batting and bowling towards the second half of his career. How did his fielding help the WI then?

And if Shane Warne was or was not as good as Hayden, so what? He was good enough to grab a very high number of chances including some amazing ones. That is all that matters. He doesn't have to be as good as Hayden. Hayden isn't replacing him in the team. And Hayden is the perfect example the guy was kicked out of the team when his batting suffered. Nobody kept him in because he could field in the slips. So yeah, your point of fielding being as important as batting or bowling is BS.

There is literally absolutely no part of this even worth responding to.

The point about systems that you seem so proud of doesn't aid your argument either.

If you're saying that smart boards, grass roots systems and coaches prioritize fielding as much as batting and bowling, then yes. But that's kinda obvious.

That.diesnt create a Mark Waugh though, that helps to develop them. The same way Sachin isn't crated, but nurtured and developed.

As usual you don't make any sense, and as usual you get worked up because anyone dare point out that Imran doesn't sit in the pantheon where you imagine him to be.

So to wrap up, yes teams are constructed with fielding and yes, especially slip fielding in mind. Players have been selected and even maintained their places in teams because of what they offered in the cordon.

If you don't think that dropped chances impact teams, and as such you try where possible to pick the best guys available then you generally don't understand the sport.

And with regards to the incredibly ignorant statement you chose to finish up your rant with.

I'll break it down for you.

Bowling then batting, from a primary stance is more important than any auxiliary skill. Period.

A Kallis's or Hammond's bowling contribution can never be as important as that of a Marshall, Marshall or Steyn, no over any extended period of time.

Lower order batsmen aren't as valuable or productive as top order batting. They're down there for a reason.

So classifying or trying to imply that Kallis's bowling or Hadlee's batting is somehow classified along the same lines as Marshall's bowling or Tendulkar's batting is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and deliberately misleading.

When we come to auxiliary skills now, they're all on an even playing field.

I've asked you this already. Which was more valuable to the dynasties of the WI and Aus, even the SA dominant one that followed the Aussies... their lower order batting or the all world slip cordons that they had? It isn't close.

But logic doesn't work let's try AI.

I've posed the question as you like short pitched probably believe that everyone else is also biased against your precious Imran. Which of the three are more important in test cricket and asked GROK to rank them.

The results

In Test cricket, where matches unfold over five days and auxiliary skills can shift momentum, the relative importance of a great slip cordon, lower-order batting depth from at least one bowler, and a good fifth bowler depends on strategy and context. Here’s a focused analysis for Tests:

1. **Great Slip Cordon (Slip Fielding)**:
- **Importance**: A great slip cordon is critical in Test cricket, where pace and spin bowlers frequently induce edges due to defensive batting and variable conditions. Elite slip fielders (e.g., Ian Chappell, Ben Stokes) can change the game by holding sharp chances, especially against top-order batsmen. A single dropped catch in the slips can allow a batsman to score heavily, potentially deciding the match.
- **Impact**: The cordon’s reliability directly affects the bowlers’ confidence and effectiveness. Teams with strong slip fielders, like Australia’s 2000s cordon (Warne, Taylor, Waugh), create pressure and capitalize on half-chances. However, its value depends on bowlers consistently generating edges.
- **Limitation**: If the bowling attack struggles to create chances, even the best cordon is underutilized.
- **Priority**: Very high, especially on seaming pitches or against cautious batting lineups.

2. **Lower-Order Batting Depth from at Least One Bowler**:
- **Importance**: In Tests, a bowler who can bat (e.g., Pat Cummins, Jason Holder) is a game-changer. Contributions from the lower order—whether a stubborn defensive stand or a counter-attacking 50—can save a match, turn a deficit into a lead, or set a defendable target. For example, Stuart Broad’s 169 at Lord’s in 2010 shifted a Test’s momentum.
- **Impact**: Batting depth adds resilience, allowing recovery from top-order collapses or maximizing first-innings totals. Even one bowler with a first-class average above 20 can frustrate oppositions and swing momentum. It also allows bolder team selections (e.g., five bowlers).
- **Limitation**: The skill is inconsistent, as bowlers’ batting varies under pressure, and it’s less impactful if the top order consistently performs.
- **Priority**: High, particularly in tight matches or on batting-friendly pitches.

3. **Good Fifth Bowler**:
- **Importance**: A reliable fifth bowler (e.g., an all-rounder like Andrew Flintoff or a part-time spinner) is valuable in Tests to manage workloads over long innings. Without one, the primary four bowlers can tire, leaking runs or losing potency, especially on flat pitches. A good fifth bowler also provides tactical flexibility, like breaking partnerships or holding an end.
- **Impact**: Ensures bowling depth, preventing over-reliance on the main attack. For instance, Joe Root’s part-time spin has often been a trump card for England. However, if the top four bowlers are world-class and conditions favor them, the fifth bowler’s role diminishes.
- **Limitation**: A fifth bowler who is merely “good” (not great) may still concede runs in high-pressure situations, and their overs are often limited.
- **Priority**: Moderate to high, depending on the primary attack’s strength and pitch conditions.

**Comparative Analysis for Tests**:
- **Slip Cordon**: Excels in conditions favoring seam or spin, where edges are frequent (e.g., England, Australia). A great cordon maximizes wickets, directly impacting the opposition’s total. It’s less effective on flat pitches with fewer chances.
- **Lower-Order Batting Depth**: Shines in high-scoring Tests or when the top order fails. A single bowler’s contribution can shift momentum, especially in close games. Its impact is less predictable but potentially match-defining.
- **Fifth Bowler**: Critical on flat pitches or in long matches, where workload management is key. It’s less vital if the main bowlers dominate or conditions suit them.

**Verdict**:
In Test cricket, **a great slip cordon** is typically the most important auxiliary skill. It directly enhances the bowling attack’s wicket-taking ability, which is the primary driver of Test match outcomes. A dropped catch can cost hundreds of runs, while a sharp cordon creates breakthroughs. **Lower-order batting depth** is a close second, as a single bowler’s runs or resistance can salvage or win tight matches, offering strategic flexibility. A **good fifth bowler** is valuable for balance but less critical if the main attack is strong, making it the least essential of the three, though still significant.

**Final Order of Importance** (Test Cricket):
1. Great slip cordon
2. Lower-order batting depth from at least one bowler
3. Good fifth bowler

This prioritization assumes a balanced team and typical Test conditions. On flat pitches, batting depth or a fifth bowler might edge out slightly, but the slip cordon’s consistent impact on wickets gives it the edge.

I'll ask it next about in an AT scenario and post in a separate post, then list the link so you can see that morning was coached or changed.

Of course no one's going to agree with all of this, like for instance a good cordon is probably even more important in flat conditions because the chances are fewer and more crucial than they be taken.

And of course it not going to alter your way of thinking because you're so incredibly close minded and single focused on pushing one player, but there are others that may find it useful.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I nominate this for Post of the Year.

 

[smash84]

There is literally absolutely no part of this even worth responding to.

The point about systems that you seem so proud of doesn't aid your argument either.

If you're saying that smart boards, grass roots systems and coaches prioritize fielding as much as batting and bowling, then yes. But that's kinda obvious.

They do not have prioritize fielding as much as the others. There is a minimum competence requirement and that is all that is needed. Do you need investment in fielding, yes. But nowhere near what is needed in batting or bowling. It isn't hard to understand.

As usual you don't make any sense, and as usual you get worked up because anyone dare point out that Imran doesn't sit in the pantheon where you imagine him to be.

I actually wouldn't care where you rate Imran if you would be transparent about it that you just don't like him and consider him a cheat. Just say it and move on. You will just be ignored by most people so you probably don't do it. Most of the forum rates Imran lower than i do. I couldn't give a ****. It is your hypocritical arguments that try to act as if they are objective arguments that just make me want to expose your agenda. That is it.

So to wrap up, yes teams are constructed with fielding and yes, especially slip fielding in mind. Players have been selected and even maintained their places in teams because of what they offered in the cordon.

Please give me 5 names consistently selected because of their fielding and not based on their batting and bowling.

But logic doesn't work let's try AI.

I've posed the question as you like short pitched probably believe that everyone else is also biased against your precious Imran. Which of the three are more important in test cricket and asked GROK to rank them.

The results

In Test cricket, where matches unfold over five days and auxiliary skills can shift momentum, the relative importance of a great slip cordon, lower-order batting depth from at least one bowler, and a good fifth bowler depends on strategy and context. Here’s a focused analysis for Tests:

1. **Great Slip Cordon (Slip Fielding)**:
- **Importance**: A great slip cordon is critical in Test cricket, where pace and spin bowlers frequently induce edges due to defensive batting and variable conditions. Elite slip fielders (e.g., Ian Chappell, Ben Stokes) can change the game by holding sharp chances, especially against top-order batsmen. A single dropped catch in the slips can allow a batsman to score heavily, potentially deciding the match.
- **Impact**: The cordon’s reliability directly affects the bowlers’ confidence and effectiveness. Teams with strong slip fielders, like Australia’s 2000s cordon (Warne, Taylor, Waugh), create pressure and capitalize on half-chances. However, its value depends on bowlers consistently generating edges.
- **Limitation**: If the bowling attack struggles to create chances, even the best cordon is underutilized.
- **Priority**: Very high, especially on seaming pitches or against cautious batting lineups.

2. **Lower-Order Batting Depth from at Least One Bowler**:
- **Importance**: In Tests, a bowler who can bat (e.g., Pat Cummins, Jason Holder) is a game-changer. Contributions from the lower order—whether a stubborn defensive stand or a counter-attacking 50—can save a match, turn a deficit into a lead, or set a defendable target. For example, Stuart Broad’s 169 at Lord’s in 2010 shifted a Test’s momentum.
- **Impact**: Batting depth adds resilience, allowing recovery from top-order collapses or maximizing first-innings totals. Even one bowler with a first-class average above 20 can frustrate oppositions and swing momentum. It also allows bolder team selections (e.g., five bowlers).
- **Limitation**: The skill is inconsistent, as bowlers’ batting varies under pressure, and it’s less impactful if the top order consistently performs.
- **Priority**: High, particularly in tight matches or on batting-friendly pitches.

3. **Good Fifth Bowler**:
- **Importance**: A reliable fifth bowler (e.g., an all-rounder like Andrew Flintoff or a part-time spinner) is valuable in Tests to manage workloads over long innings. Without one, the primary four bowlers can tire, leaking runs or losing potency, especially on flat pitches. A good fifth bowler also provides tactical flexibility, like breaking partnerships or holding an end.
- **Impact**: Ensures bowling depth, preventing over-reliance on the main attack. For instance, Joe Root’s part-time spin has often been a trump card for England. However, if the top four bowlers are world-class and conditions favor them, the fifth bowler’s role diminishes.
- **Limitation**: A fifth bowler who is merely “good” (not great) may still concede runs in high-pressure situations, and their overs are often limited.
- **Priority**: Moderate to high, depending on the primary attack’s strength and pitch conditions.

**Comparative Analysis for Tests**:
- **Slip Cordon**: Excels in conditions favoring seam or spin, where edges are frequent (e.g., England, Australia). A great cordon maximizes wickets, directly impacting the opposition’s total. It’s less effective on flat pitches with fewer chances.
- **Lower-Order Batting Depth**: Shines in high-scoring Tests or when the top order fails. A single bowler’s contribution can shift momentum, especially in close games. Its impact is less predictable but potentially match-defining.
- **Fifth Bowler**: Critical on flat pitches or in long matches, where workload management is key. It’s less vital if the main bowlers dominate or conditions suit them.

**Verdict**:
In Test cricket, **a great slip cordon** is typically the most important auxiliary skill. It directly enhances the bowling attack’s wicket-taking ability, which is the primary driver of Test match outcomes. A dropped catch can cost hundreds of runs, while a sharp cordon creates breakthroughs. **Lower-order batting depth** is a close second, as a single bowler’s runs or resistance can salvage or win tight matches, offering strategic flexibility. A **good fifth bowler** is valuable for balance but less critical if the main attack is strong, making it the least essential of the three, though still significant.

**Final Order of Importance** (Test Cricket):
1. Great slip cordon
2. Lower-order batting depth from at least one bowler
3. Good fifth bowler

This prioritization assumes a balanced team and typical Test conditions. On flat pitches, batting depth or a fifth bowler might edge out slightly, but the slip cordon’s consistent impact on wickets gives it the edge.

I'll ask it next about in an AT scenario and post in a separate post, then list the link so you can see that morning was coached or changed.

Of course no one's going to agree with all of this, like for instance a good cordon is probably even more important in flat conditions because the chances are fewer and more crucial than they be taken.

And of course it not going to alter your way of thinking because you're so incredibly close minded and single focused on pushing one player, but there are others that may find it useful.

What kind of a post is this? "We ask AI". Really? If you can't even use your brain, how will AI help you?

 

[Johan]

 

[kyear2]

, first it was me, and subz. Then it was me and subz and "ORS". Now its me, subz, "ORS", and shortpitched.

The world is against you.

And it was you who made outrageous comments like "Richie Benaud is racist" because he didn't choose your favorite player in his team.

Interestingly you don't much refer to Richie's team which is arguably the greatest put together by an expert

Not everyone Sir, just a small group of myopic persons who can't see the world outside of a limited perspective.

Subz is infuriating, but it just one player, and yes he goes after Kallis and Ambrose, but you take it to extremes that just borderline ignorant.

I would like you to watch Richie's team, specially where he repeatedly makes the disclaimer that it isn't the best team, but one that he would want to represent him.

There were his words, not mine.

Additionally yes, and for someone, who like myself watched and experienced cricket from that era, you're well aware of the media's and boards take towards their dominance. It wasn't a secret and not nearly well kept. The articles and and coverage were only thinly veiled in their racism, which was wild because we only first copied and then improved on what Lillee and Thompson was renowned for doing and was celebrated. One could even hear it in his commentary, especially when describing guys like Hadlee, where he would make statements like, "this is how it's supposed to be done. No bouncers or intimidation, just skill and....." I've posted such examples in the past. He equally excluded Murali, Knott and others from his short lists.

I've also posted vids showing the laws that were changed, the bouncer rule and min overs were only the tip of the iceberg. Banning instruments in England, curtailing the over seas players in county cricket, not allowing WI fans to sit together, yet still inviting us over because unfortunately for them, that's where the money was.

I'm not asking you, I've not only seen it, but spoken to multiple former test players who referenced same as well. But you can just be you and pretend that he could name 6 fast bowlers better than Marshall, 3 spinners better than Murali or that Marsh was better than Knott.

You allow yourself to get so damn worked up about one player that you lose any semblance of objectivity

 

[capt_Luffy]

Prompt: Can I take AI's opinion regarding the importance of different aspects of Cricket Seriously?




No, you should not take AI’s opinion seriously when it comes to the importance of different aspects of cricket—and here’s why:

Why You Should Be Cautious:

1. AI Doesn’t Think—It Synthesizes:

AI doesn’t have its own beliefs or experiences.

It reflects what has been written or emphasized in historical data, expert articles, and fan opinions.



2. Source Bias:

If most sources it’s trained on emphasize batting average over strike rate, or Test cricket over ODIs, the AI may echo those biases—even if modern thinking differs.



3. No Emotional or Cultural Context:

AI can’t grasp intangibles like clutch performances, fan impact, or cultural influence (e.g., the aura of a Kapil Dev or the pressure Sachin faced in the 1990s India).



4. Can Overvalue Measurable Stats:

AI might overrate aspects that are easily quantified (e.g., economy rate, average), and undervalue aspects that are situational or qualitative (e.g., leadership, intimidation, adaptability).





---

What You Can Use AI For:

To understand how different eras compare statistically.

To get objective summaries of players, formats, or roles.


---

What You Should Do:

Treat AI’s opinion as one input in your analysis—not the final word.

Challenge it by bringing your own cricketing logic, context, and counterpoints.

Ask AI why it values something and see if the explanation aligns with your cricketing philosophy.



---

In short: AI can guide, but you must decide.