Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[sayon basak]

@subshakerz and @kyear2 has voted for the same option. Wouldn't be surprised if an asteroid hits Earth now.

 

[smash84]

This is a badly defined question.

I think a 9 man slip cordon might beat everything else.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz and @kyear2 has voted for the same option. Wouldn't be surprised if an asteroid hits Earth now.

Because he did a poor job if defining his question so I took it to mean literally having no slip cordon.

If he means the difference between a normal and an elite single slip, I will take lower order batting.

 

[Coronis]

This is a badly defined question.

I think a 9 man slip cordon might beat everything else.

Just ask Bradman

 

[kyear2]

Hard to pick between catching and lower order batting with both beating 5th bowler. My perception is the 5th bowler is mostly needed as a filler while lower order runs have been conspicuously valuable. Inclined to favour catches win matches option. A team taking its chances would have less need for a genuine 5th bowler and could fill that place with a genuine batsman.

There's a couple ways to look at this from my perspective, and I think they all came back to the same conclusion for me.

Which can I get away with the bare minimum of contribution, value or talent for.

Which would be most vital to a winning team.

For which would I be willing to make a sacrifice for to ensure I had a better option.

I've seen great teams get by with the bare minimum as 5th bowlers, and yes, while I've seen the likes of Kallis and even Head of late snaring the odd key wicket, it's not reliable and the position is more procedural, where you have the option to rest your main bowlers and not risk releasing pressure or even giving away the shop. Alternatively to facilitate flexibility in selection if you want two spinners for example, or a Bobby Simpson being a handful on a turning pitch. It's also the position I'm least willing to make sacrifices from my batting line up for. I don't need 5 specialist bowlers, just an option to facilitate rest or flexibility.

Lower order batting has always been important, and while none of the great teams of recent eras really had a Pollock level performer, they all had a more than decent specialist no. 8 that often held the breach when required and was capable of vital contributions. Generally the stronger the batting line up, the lesser reliance on the wagging of the tail, but a full bunny one is still never ideal, so at least two bowlers capable of lower order contributions are preferred. The desired or required floor of ability is also ideally a bit higher than the minimum standard for a 5th bowler.

Since the post war (especially since the 60's) emergence of the predominance of the fast bowler and their direct link to team success, the importance of the slip cordon has also increased. A hallmark of most, if not all of the post 60's great teams have been their cordons. It's also the only one of the auxialry skills where the bare minimum can actively cost matches and isn't viable for high level success. Hence the preferred floor of the ability for at least a couple of those standing in the cordon is higher than either your 5th bowler or no. 8 batsman and definitely approaches if not requires the level of specialist.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[subshakerz]

There's a couple ways to look at this from my perspective, and I think they all came back to the same conclusion for me.

Which can I get away with the bare minimum of contribution, value or talent from.

Which would be most vital to a winning team.

For which would I be willing to make a sacrifice for to ensure I had a better option. for.

I've seen great teams get by with the bare minimum as 5th bowlers, and yes, while I've seen the likes of Kallis and even Head of late snaring the odd key wicket, it's not reliable and the position is more procedural, where you have the option to rest your main bowlers and not risk releasing pressure or even giving away the shop. Or to facilitate flexibility in selection if you want two spinners for example, or a Bobby Simpson being a handful on a turning pitch. It's also the position I'm least willing to make sacrifices from my batting line up for. I don't need 5 specialist bowlers, just a guy to facilitate rest or flexibility.

Lower order batting has always been important, and while none of the great teams of recent eras really had a Pollock level performer, they all had a more than decent specialist no. 8 that often held the breach when required and was capable of vital runs. Generally the stronger the batting line up, the lesser reliance on the wagging of the tail, but a full bunny one is still never ideal, so at least two bowlers capable of lower order contributions are preferred. The desired or required floor of ability is also ideally higher than the minimum standard for a 5th bowler.

Since the post war (especially since the 60's) emergence of the predominance of the fast bowler and their direct link to team success, the importance of the slip cordon has also increased. A hallmark of most, if not all of the post 60's great teams have been their cordons. It's also the only one of the auxialry skills where the bare minimum can actively cost matches and isn't viable for high end success. Hence the preferred floor of the ability for at least a couple of those standing in the cordon is higher than either your 5th bowler or no. 8 batsman and definitely approaches the level of specialist.

Just my opinion of course.

Are you comparing one 5th bowler and no.8 to an entire slip cordon?

 

[kyear2]

@subshakerz and @kyear2 has voted for the same option. Wouldn't be surprised if an asteroid hits Earth now.

Weird co-incidence that I'm watching a documentary on the various probabilities of death from above.

Basically asteroids or a close super novae are the leading options. Quasar bursts from memory and of course Carrington events can't be overlooked.

 

[kyear2]

@Cipher , as discussed.

 

[the big bambino]

There's a couple ways to look at this from my perspective, and I think they all came back to the same conclusion for me.

Which can I get away with the bare minimum of contribution, value or talent from.

Which would be most vital to a winning team.

For which would I be willing to make a sacrifice for to ensure I had a better option. for.

I've seen great teams get by with the bare minimum as 5th bowlers, and yes, while I've seen the likes of Kallis and even Head of late snaring the odd key wicket, it's not reliable and the position is more procedural, where you have the option to rest your main bowlers and not risk releasing pressure or even giving away the shop. Or to facilitate flexibility in selection if you want two spinners for example, or a Bobby Simpson being a handful on a turning pitch. It's also the position I'm least willing to make sacrifices from my batting line up for. I don't need 5 specialist bowlers, just a guy to facilitate rest or flexibility.

Lower order batting has always been important, and while none of the great teams of recent eras really had a Pollock level performer, they all had a more than decent specialist no. 8 that often held the breach when required and was capable of vital runs. Generally the stronger the batting line up, the lesser reliance on the wagging of the tail, but a full bunny one is still never ideal, so at least two bowlers capable of lower order contributions are preferred. The desired or required floor of ability is also ideally higher than the minimum standard for a 5th bowler.

Since the post war (especially since the 60's) emergence of the predominance of the fast bowler and their direct link to team success, the importance of the slip cordon has also increased. A hallmark of most, if not all of the post 60's great teams have been their cordons. It's also the only one of the auxialry skills where the bare minimum can actively cost matches and isn't viable for high end success. Hence the preferred floor of the ability for at least a couple of those standing in the cordon is higher than either your 5th bowler or no. 8 batsman and definitely approaches the level of specialist.

Just my opinion of course.

You can see and measure the value of 5th bowlers and lower order runs but it's harder to quantify good fielding. But the latter is the skill you'd want your side to have. It has a remarkable effect on the mental side of the game. I'm sure we've all played at our respective levels and encountered the pressure good and great fielding has on the batting side. It also keeps the bowler's spirits up and they always feel they have a chance. I think good fielding alleviates the physical and mental stain on bowlers, allowing the team selection to be balanced.

This thread has made me confront my own personal bias for 5 bowlers as it made me rate that skill last when given the choice. I also like teams that take the chance on a long tail at the expense of lower order runs. The WI team of 92/93 and 96/97 had so so batsmen as keepers and coming in at 7. That's a long tail. Yet they won the first series and just lost the second. I like the insurance of lower order runs but the best outcome seems to be a team of specialists who also happen to be great fielders.

 

[Cipher]

I find it hard to vote for this, specifically because I believe that the 5th bowler/lower order batting importance depends on the team. Certainly I would say that when so many wicket chances occur in the slips that you need catching ability there. So that’s number one.

5th bowler skill depends on your first 4 bowlers imo. If your 4 bowlers are robust enough that they can bowl 20-25 overs in a day or so strong that they can often roll sides within a day is that 5th option that important?

There is the case of bowling load management & if there’s a gap in quality from your best 4 bowlers in the country compared to the rest (e.g Australia atm) having that 5th option to reduce injury is important.

Plus sometimes that 5th bowler gets a crucial wicket just by offering something different, although I wouldn’t say this is always reliable & their primary purpose should just be to help with the dog overs & not concede too many runs.

Lower order batting is another interesting one. Despite making a thread earlier about its uses I’m not sure how often it matters in most test matches. It is a difference maker when the game is close or when your batting order collapsed. But these events aren’t occurring every match. Often test matches have larger margins of victories than what lower order batting provides.

However 5 man bowling attacks have become more popular lately (e.g. England/India) & in those cases having 2 of those 5 that can bat means your team keeps its balance.

But if it’s from your argument that the 5th bowler is mostly a holding bowler/occasional wicket taker I think the lower order batting might contribute to the team winning/not losing a little more regularly.

 

[subshakerz]

I find it hard to vote for this, specifically because I believe that the 5th bowler/lower order batting importance depends on the team. Certainly I would say that when so many wicket chances occur in the slips that you need catching ability there. So that’s number one.

5th bowler skill depends on your first 4 bowlers imo. If your 4 bowlers are robust enough that they can bowl 20-25 overs in a day or so strong that they can often roll sides within a day is that 5th option that important?

There is the case of bowling load management & if there’s a gap in quality from your best 4 bowlers in the country compared to the rest (e.g Australia atm) having that 5th option to reduce injury is important.

Plus sometimes that 5th bowler gets a crucial wicket just by offering something different, although I wouldn’t say this is always reliable & their primary purpose should just be to help with the dog overs & not concede too many runs.

Lower order batting is another interesting one. Despite making a thread earlier about its uses I’m not sure how often it matters in most test matches. It is a difference maker when the game is close or when your batting order collapsed. But these events aren’t occurring every match. Often test matches have larger margins of victories than what lower order batting provides.

However 5 man bowling attacks have become more popular lately (e.g. England/India) & in those cases having 2 of those 5 that can bat means your team keeps its balance.

But if it’s from your argument that the 5th bowler is mostly a holding bowler/occasional wicket taker I think the lower order batting might contribute to the team winning/not losing a little more regularly.

You have given the exact reasoning for why I think lower order batting is more valuable.

The 5th bowler is useful but how many times are they going to bail out the mess of the first four bowlers?

However, a good lower order and tail, unless there is a declaration, will be useful much more frequently than a 5th bowler simply based on batting every innings.

They will either ensure a good score is an even better score or allow the other bats to bail out the team and repair a score.

 

[subshakerz]

I can think of many more occasions when a lower order changed the entire landscape of a game by a late partnership, stretching a 150 score to 250, etc.

Compared to a 5th bowler suddenly going on a wicket spree or doing significant damage.

Even an ATG batting lineup of Australia in the 2000s were bailed out many more times with Waugh or Hussey batting with the tail than the need for a 5th bowler like Clarke for some rest overs.

 

[kyear2]

You can see and measure the value of 5th bowlers and lower order runs but it's harder to quantify good fielding. But the latter is the skill you'd want your side to have. It has a remarkable effect on the mental side of the game. I'm sure we've all played at our respective levels and encountered the pressure good and great fielding has on the batting side. It also keeps the bowler's spirits up and they always feel they have a chance. I think good fielding alleviates the physical and mental stain on bowlers, allowing the team selection to be balanced.

This thread has made me confront my own personal bias for 5 bowlers as it made me rate that skill last when given the choice. I also like teams that take the chance on a long tail at the expense of lower order runs. The WI team of 92/93 and 96/97 had so so batsmen as keepers and coming in at 7. That's a long tail. Yet they won the first series and just lost the second. I like the insurance of lower order runs but the best outcome seems to be a team of specialists who also happen to be great fielders.

The first sentence of the highlighted paragraph is exactly where the problem lies.

It's easier to look at the batting average of a lower order batsman, or of a 5th bowler and see the wickets. But it actually requires a more nuanced take to appreciate and identify what a cordon brings to the game.

I dropped catch deflates the entire team, and gives a fresh guard to the batsman. I've seen series defined by dropped chances as much as anything the batsmen and bowlers have done.

And yes, I especially agree with the last sentence as well, give me specialists all day.

Anyways, good post.

 

[kyear2]

I find it hard to vote for this, specifically because I believe that the 5th bowler/lower order batting importance depends on the team. Certainly I would say that when so many wicket chances occur in the slips that you need catching ability there. So that’s number one.

5th bowler skill depends on your first 4 bowlers imo. If your 4 bowlers are robust enough that they can bowl 20-25 overs in a day or so strong that they can often roll sides within a day is that 5th option that important?

There is the case of bowling load management & if there’s a gap in quality from your best 4 bowlers in the country compared to the rest (e.g Australia atm) having that 5th option to reduce injury is important.

Plus sometimes that 5th bowler gets a crucial wicket just by offering something different, although I wouldn’t say this is always reliable & their primary purpose should just be to help with the dog overs & not concede too many runs.

Lower order batting is another interesting one. Despite making a thread earlier about its uses I’m not sure how often it matters in most test matches. It is a difference maker when the game is close or when your batting order collapsed. But these events aren’t occurring every match. Often test matches have larger margins of victories than what lower order batting provides.

However 5 man bowling attacks have become more popular lately (e.g. England/India) & in those cases having 2 of those 5 that can bat means your team keeps its balance.

But if it’s from your argument that the 5th bowler is mostly a holding bowler/occasional wicket taker I think the lower order batting might contribute to the team winning/not losing a little more regularly.

I think all 3 can be and are critical. You made some good points there that also made me think of my order, but yeah. Meaningful contributions from your 5th is less frequent that a Cummins adding a few useful runs at the tail end of the innings. But the procedural benefits of a 5th bowler is present just by completing his quota of overs, giving the main guys a rest. Any wickets taken is purely an added bonus. But a guy to split the load of the dog overs, and offering that flexibility is critical.

Still 3rd for me though...?

I've also purposely avoided using certain names in this thread, but I just want to note that someone like Sobers wasn't a 5th bowler. From the time he started bowling the faster stuff, he opened the bowling more often than he was even 2nd change. He was primarily the 1st change option.

So by 5th bowlers we're taking players like a Simpson, Worrell, Hammond, Kallis etc.

And as I'm about to press post, I realized that all of them were more valuable to their teams for skills other than said bowling (Kallis being the closest in value)

So yeah, 5th bowling still 3rd.

 

[Coronis]

I find it hard to vote for this, specifically because I believe that the 5th bowler/lower order batting importance depends on the team. Certainly I would say that when so many wicket chances occur in the slips that you need catching ability there. So that’s number one.

5th bowler skill depends on your first 4 bowlers imo. If your 4 bowlers are robust enough that they can bowl 20-25 overs in a day or so strong that they can often roll sides within a day is that 5th option that important?

There is the case of bowling load management & if there’s a gap in quality from your best 4 bowlers in the country compared to the rest (e.g Australia atm) having that 5th option to reduce injury is important.

Plus sometimes that 5th bowler gets a crucial wicket just by offering something different, although I wouldn’t say this is always reliable & their primary purpose should just be to help with the dog overs & not concede too many runs.

Lower order batting is another interesting one. Despite making a thread earlier about its uses I’m not sure how often it matters in most test matches. It is a difference maker when the game is close or when your batting order collapsed. But these events aren’t occurring every match. Often test matches have larger margins of victories than what lower order batting provides.

However 5 man bowling attacks have become more popular lately (e.g. England/India) & in those cases having 2 of those 5 that can bat means your team keeps its balance.

But if it’s from your argument that the 5th bowler is mostly a holding bowler/occasional wicket taker I think the lower order batting might contribute to the team winning/not losing a little more regularly.

Thing I’d disagree with in this post. I’d say we have 5 great quality bowlers, not 4.

 

[subshakerz]

So yeah, 5th bowling still 3rd.

Glad to see you come around on this.

 

[kyear2]

Thing I’d disagree with in this post. I’d say we have 5 great quality bowlers, not 4.

You have a take on the subject matter?

 

[Coronis]

You have a take on the subject matter?

Not really.

 

[Cipher]

Thing I’d disagree with in this post. I’d say we have 5 great quality bowlers, not 4.

Yeah I forgot about Boland, the brilliant unassuming man he is. Admittedly he's only done well in Australia (though not had much of a chance to prove elsewhere)

 

[kyear2]

@Red , @peterhrt , @HeathDavisSpeed , @Burgey , @Sliferxxxx , thoughts?