Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

I don’t think that was the original question though. It was “Which of the auxiliary skills have been more impactful, important or determinative to results in test cricket over the century.
Let's rank them, slip cordons, lower order batting and relief / 5th bowling.”

Not: “Which elite auxiliary skill would you pick for a team compared to the test standard?”

Yes but Kyear has been beating this drum for some time by suggesting that because a slip cordon is more determinative of results therefore an elite slipper is more or roughly as valuable as a good no.8 as a selection criteria. That's his reasoning behind the entire thread even if he didn't state it explicitly. Just giving you the background.

 

[Johan]

far too situation realistically.

 

[kyear2]

Actually I agree. I switched my vote.

A single great slip catcher is not going to be as useful as a good no.8. A good no.8 just is a more regular contributor.

And it's far easier to find competent slip catchers. The marginal value of a the difference between an elite slip catcher and a competent one is not more than the value of a good no.8

1. There was nothing in that post to agree with, there wasn't a single paragraph of the three that made any coherent sense, so if that changed your mind, you wanted to change it.

2. Easier to find doesn't mean less important. I'll also dispute easier to find, because there's a paucity of world class slip fielders in the world today and even some of the better ones as referenced by @HeathDavisSpeed , or a Khawaja has inopportune drops that costs matches. I would also argue on the value and you should ask McGrath or Warne about the value of Waugh or Ponting and 2nd.

3. What constitutes a good no. 8? I would say Cummins and above. Let's even raise his average to a hypothetical 24, that's worth more than having all of your catches taken? I would argue no.

4. Kallis and Pollock played together for a considerable period of time . Between Kallis's catches at 2nd, and Pollock's lower order runs, which contributed to more victories. Kallis was invaluable to SA and to guys like Steyn. It was edged, it was caught.

5. I would love you to name the great teams in history that were build around or elevated by lower order batting. Batting depth is always appreciated, and guys like Marshall / Warne / Cummins etc more than easily fill such roles, and none .....

6. We're more important than the slip cordons their teams had. I've asked you this countless times. Given the choice, would Australia / West Indies / South Africa have traded out the quality of their slip cordons for even Imran level batting depth at 8.

It's a simple question and a very simple answer.

And the nonsense with regards to the marginal value isn't so marginal when Usman drops a batsman that goes on to score a double hundred and you lose the match.

I'll maintain that all 3 are very important in this game of cricket, and if you have a weak team with not great specialists, that amplifies the need for all 3 even more.

But if you want to be elite, there's only one that a team can't succeed without.

 

[subshakerz]

1. There was nothing in that post to agree with, there wasn't a single paragraph of the three that made any coherent sense, so if that changed your mind, you wanted to change it.

2. Easier to find doesn't mean less important. I'll also dispute easier to find, because there's a paucity of world class slip fielders in the world today and even some of the better ones as referenced by @HeathDavisSpeed , or a Khawaja has inopportune drops that costs matches. I would also argue on the value and you should ask McGrath or Warne about the value of Waugh or Ponting and 2nd.

3. What constitutes a good no. 8? I would say Cummins and above. Let's even raise his average to a hypothetical 24, that's worth more than having all of your catches taken? I would argue no.

4. Kallis and Pollock played together for a considerable period of time . Between Kallis's catches at 2nd, and Pollock's lower order runs, which contributed to more victories. Kallis was invaluable to SA and to guys like Steyn. It was edged, it was caught.

5. I would love you to name the great teams in history that were build around or elevated by lower order batting. Batting depth is always appreciated, and guys like Marshall / Warne / Cummins etc more than easily fill such roles, and none .....

6. We're more important than the slip cordons their teams had. I've asked you this countless times. Given the choice, would Australia / West Indies / South Africa have traded out the quality of their slip cordons for even Imran level batting depth at 8.

It's a simple question and a very simple answer.

And the nonsense with regards to the marginal value isn't so marginal when Usman drops a batsman that goes on to score a double hundred and you lose the match.

I'll maintain that all 3 are very important in this game of cricket, and if you have a weak team with not great specialists, that amplifies the need for all 3 even more.

But if you want to be elite, there's only one that a team can't succeed without.

No need to disrespect that poster

Again are we talking three slip fielders or one? If it's three, they are more important than a no.8. if it's one, then the no.8 is more important.

Yes Cummins at 24 is worth a few more catches.

Kallis and Pollock aren't at the same level of secondary skills.

Why are all great teams a consideration? Why not average teams? Anyways all great teams had a capable no.8.

It's a false dilemma. Nobody is weighing one no.8 against three catchers except you.

Yes marginal value matters. I can give examples of no.8s scoring tons too.

A team would much rather prefer an elite no.8 to a SINGLE elite slip catcher.

 

[subshakerz]

If for an average side I had the choice of a slip cordon than catches every catch compared to a regular one, compared to a tail that on average gives you 50 more runs per innings compared to a regular tail, I would choose the tail.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Again, I disagree. A team (usually - declaration shenanigans and errors notwithstanding) has to take 20 wickets. If you're relying on your #8 to contribute important runs, I think you've probably not got the batsmen you need and therefore the additional batting of the #8 is a deliberate balance choice. The best teams will very reluctantly give 20 wicket opportunities - losing a couple as you've got a below average slip fielder is - to my mind - more important than a marginal improvement in #8 batting. We're talking small preferences here, not mutually exclusive decisions about the #8 can bat/can't bat. If that was the case, then sure the #8 would be more important, but a marginal gain in #8 runs (lets say, on average 5 runs) is worth less than the marginal improvement in slip fielding (one-two dropped catches/lost opportunities).

I'm not going to say someone else's call is wrong as this is hardly dealing in absolutes but that's my view.

To return to my example of Daryl Mitchell, the commentators certainly think he's a good slip fielder and he's had his good days, but he drops a decent number. For an upgrade in his success rate, I'd take the bargain of fewer runs from #8.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If for an average side I had the choice of a slip cordon than catches every catch compared to a regular one, compared to a tail that on average gives you 50 more runs per innings compared to a regular tail, I would choose the tail.

50 runs per innings is a big gain on a tail. Even that Giddens/Mullally/Tufnell one you'd be looking at turning batting averages of ~8 to batting averages of more than ~20 each.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, I disagree. A team (usually - declaration shenanigans and errors notwithstanding) has to take 20 wickets. If you're relying on your #8 to contribute important runs, I think you've probably not got the batsmen you need and therefore the additional batting of the #8 is a deliberate balance choice. The best teams will very reluctantly give 20 wicket opportunities - losing a couple as you've got a below average slip fielder is - to my mind - more important than a marginal improvement in #8 batting. We're talking small preferences here, not mutually exclusive decisions about the #8 can bat/can't bat. If that was the case, then sure the #8 would be more important, but a marginal gain in #8 runs (lets say, on average 5 runs) is worth less than the marginal improvement in slip fielding (one-two dropped catches/lost opportunities).

I'm not going to say someone else's call is wrong as this is hardly dealing in absolutes but that's my view.

To return to my example of Daryl Mitchell, the commentators certainly think he's a good slip fielder and he's had his good days, but he drops a decent number. For an upgrade in his success rate, I'd take the bargain of fewer runs from #8.

Ok let's break it down.

Let's say we are talking one elite slip catcher vs very good no.8 averaging mid 20s.

How many extra slip catches does the elite catcher give you per series compared to an average one? Perhaps 1 to 3? Certainly not more than one per game unless we are comparing to an exceptional bad slip like 90s Pakistan. Also please keep in mind those catches aren't always key ones, many are off tailend bats or when the match isn't at a critical point.

Now compare that to the good no.8 who is giving you an extra 10 to 15 runs per innings and on top of that, his biggest value is being able to allow other middle order bats key partnerships to stretch the innings.

If you estimate the frequency of a no.8 helping to save games that go into the final day, stretch innings from poor totals to competitive ones or good ones to great ones, it is simply more value than the extra catches a SINGLE elite slip takes.

And this is much more clear for average sides than great sides, but even in great sides like Aus 2000s, they are more regularly helped out by competent Warne or Lee at no.8 than any single slip catcher (not the entire cordon which I agree is more important). Think of Ashes 2005 or frankly all the times they hung around with Gilly to destroy teams.

 

[subshakerz]

50 runs per innings is a big gain on a tail. Even that Giddens/Mullally/Tufnell one you'd be looking at turning batting averages of ~8 to batting averages of more than ~20 each.

I am assuming the elite tail counterpart to an elite slip cordon would have someone averaging in the 30s at no.8 and the rest in the teens.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I am assuming the elite tail counterpart to an elite slip cordon would have someone averaging in the 30s at no.8 and the rest in the teens.

Then I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all. I’m talking marginal improvements in one slip fielder and you’re talking 50 extra runs per innings from the tail. That’s not a reasonable comparison.

My comparison was more based around likely team selections as I previously outlined - do you take the #8 with marginally better batting or the #8 with marginally better slip fielding. In that case, I’d argue one extra catch taken > marginal batting improvement. 50 runs per innings extra is not at all marginal.

 

[kyear2]

Again, I disagree. A team (usually - declaration shenanigans and errors notwithstanding) has to take 20 wickets. If you're relying on your #8 to contribute important runs, I think you've probably not got the batsmen you need and therefore the additional batting of the #8 is a deliberate balance choice. The best teams will very reluctantly give 20 wicket opportunities - losing a couple as you've got a below average slip fielder is - to my mind - more important than a marginal improvement in #8 batting. We're talking small preferences here, not mutually exclusive decisions about the #8 can bat/can't bat. If that was the case, then sure the #8 would be more important, but a marginal gain in #8 runs (lets say, on average 5 runs) is worth less than the marginal improvement in slip fielding (one-two dropped catches/lost opportunities).

I'm not going to say someone else's call is wrong as this is hardly dealing in absolutes but that's my view.

To return to my example of Daryl Mitchell, the commentators certainly think he's a good slip fielder and he's had his good days, but he drops a decent number. For an upgrade in his success rate, I'd take the bargain of fewer runs from #8.

The bolded part is something I've been saying for a while.

If you're relying on your no. 8 consistently for runs, you have bigger problems.

I believe that Subz and I had a discussion once that Imran in an AT scenario may be needed later in a series if the team was struggling to score runs.

But again, if you're struggling to score runs, that's a batsman problem, and to say the solution is dropping one of your bowlers, then again that's like arranging chairs on the deck of the sinking titanic.

Any argument that starts with every run matters, and they're do, must also start with that every wicket matters even more. Which then goes back to your point of threading the needle when it comes to balancing selecting the best bowlers, but trying to maintain a non rabbit level tail with some competence baked in.

 

[subshakerz]

Then I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all. I’m talking marginal improvements in one slip fielder and you’re talking 50 extra runs per innings from the tail. That’s not a reasonable comparison.

I am talking an elite cordon vs an elite tail. Which do you prefer?

My comparison was more based around likely team selections as I previously outlined - do you take the #8 with marginally better batting or the #8 with marginally better slip fielding. In that case, I’d argue one extra catch taken > marginal batting improvement. 50 runs per innings extra is not at all marginal.

If it's marginally better I would still pick no.8 because I think it's a more important position with more influence on the game than a single slip fielder. I see more situations where that marginal difference comes into play for a no.8.

 

[subshakerz]

I believe that Subz and I had a discussion once that Imran in an AT scenario may be needed later in a series if the team was struggling to score runs.

Imran won't be in the ATG XI as you falsified him to be in your third XI.

And anyways we are assuming they are facing a similar team.

 

[subshakerz]

If you're relying on your no. 8 consistently for runs, you have bigger problems.

You act as if Aus 2000 never relied on Warne at no.8. What about Ashes 2005 and frankly many many other occasions?

And I've said repeatedly, it's not just the runs, it's his ability to stick around for other bats that makes him so crucial.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I am talking an elite cordon vs an elite tail. Which do you prefer?

Well, that isn’t the question posed in the OP. But if you can improve your tail by 50 runs, that would be worth more than 1-2 extra catches. But if you had a slip cordon equivalent to Mullally/Giddens/Tufnell, I’d argue you’d be looking at taking zero slip catches! In reality, no professional slip cordon is that bad. You have to make equivalent comparisons to my mind.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, that isn’t the question posed in the OP. But if you can improve your tail by 50 runs, that would be worth more than 1-2 extra catches. But if you had a slip cordon equivalent to Mullally/Giddens/Tufnell, I’d argue you’d be looking at taking zero slip catches! In reality, no professional slip cordon is that bad. You have to make equivalent comparisons to my mind.

Yeah if you are arguing that the cost of a horrible slip cordon is worse than a horrible tail, I will agree. Pakistan in the 90s had a slip cordon that bad.

But I would argue most slip cordons are bottomline competent with the safest hands in the team there. But no such assurance with the tail.

However, the reality also is that even elite slips have drops as well. Kyear calls Smith an elite slipper but he has shelled quite a few.

 

[peterhrt]

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

In real life theoretical selection ideas are often over-ridden by who is available. When Duncan Fletcher took over as England coach, he said he didn't want one-dimensional cricketers. Everyone had to contribute in more than one area. He talked up lower-order runs. Yet his most successful team had three number elevens and two specialist batsmen who were poor fielders (Vaughan and Pietersen). The kind of cricketer he was advocating, Ashley Giles, would have been dismissed by previous generations as a bits-and-pieces player unsuited to Test cricket.

England's successful teams of the 1950s normally featured five bowlers and a long tail. Before that, bowling all-rounders had been favoured. Strauss when captain wanted five bowlers for flexibility, but coach Flower favoured an attritional approach of four men "bowling dry" and plenty of batting to grind the opposition down. It worked because Swann could bowl long spells in both innings.

Poor fielding sides don't win many Test matches.

 

[subshakerz]

Poor fielding sides don't win many Test matches.

Yes I think this could be an argument that slips can't be seen as separate from the general fielding standards of the side.

 

[kyear2]

50 runs per innings is a big gain on a tail. Even that Giddens/Mullally/Tufnell one you'd be looking at turning batting averages of ~8 to batting averages of more than ~20 each.

What is missing there is that while you're getting a few runs more, if you're sacrificing bowling for it, how much are you giving up there in terms of wickets? If you're dropping catches, how many are you giving up there?

So what are you doing, trying to guarantee more draws?

I'll try to keep this short, but I try to look at these scenarios from real world realities and no tail consistently gives an additional 50 runs per match. Most no. 8's didn't routinely bat twice a match so the added batting often isn't utilized.

I'm going to use Imran for a bit, not to disparage, but becuse he was the best, and mind you, considerably above the mean.

Between '74 and '88 he scored 2855 runs from 72 matches or 105 innings.

His rpi was a decent, but not world breaking 27, his rpm was a more moderate 39. So from a production basis you're getting about 40 runs per match, and that's including a little down down hill skiing and some stat padding.

Someone less renowned like a Marshall, with a lower average of 18 compared to 32. He had a rpi of 17 and a rpm of 22, as they batted even less in the 2nd innings.

So even between those those two you're looking at a difference of about 10 runs per innings, which in many scenarios, it was just the one innings that they're batting.

The purported difference between the very best and very much average isn't what it's imagined to be. So no, it's not an average of 50 runs per match or what ever numbers were imagined.

The difference that a Waugh, Taylor or Simpson made by taking chances, half chances and creating chances alike and guys that routinely drops is significant.

 

[Coronis]

What is missing there is that while you're getting a few runs more, if you're sacrificing bowling for it, how much are you giving up there in terms of wickets? If you're dropping catches, how many are you giving up there?

So what are you doing, trying to guarantee more draws?

I'll try to keep this short, but I try to look at these scenarios from real world realities and no tail consistently gives an additional 50 runs per match. Most no. 8's didn't routinely bat twice a match so the added batting often isn't utilized.

I'm going to use Imran for a bit, not to disparage, but becuse he was the best, and mind you, considerably above the mean.

Between '74 and '88 he scored 2855 runs from 72 matches or 105 innings.

His rpi was a decent, but not world breaking 27, his rpm was a more moderate 39. So from a production basis you're getting about 40 runs per match, and that's including a little down down hill skiing and some stat padding.

Someone less renowned like a Marshall, with a lower average of 18 compared to 32. He had a rpi of 17 and a rpm of 22, as they batted even less in the 2nd innings.

So even between those those two you're looking at a difference of about 10 runs per innings, which in many scenarios, it was just the one innings that they're batting.

The purported difference between the very best and very much average isn't what it's imagined to be. So no, it's not an average of 50 runs per match or what ever numbers were imagined.

The difference that a Waugh, Taylor or Simpson made by taking chances, half chances and creating chances alike and guys that routinely drops is significant.

I would just like to point out that the biggest value of a solid #8 or tailender is not their own runs, but the runs they create by being able to stick around with an established batsmen.