Sure.
Remember Australia had a relatively very good tail of Warne, Brett Lee and Gillespie off and on.
Vs SA 2002, Aus are 6-185 well behind SA as Warne scores a fifty and Gilly a ton as Aus get a matchwinning lead.
Vs Eng 2002, Australia are eight down and 100 behind Eng as Gillespie hangs with Gilly and they achieve parity and win eventually.
Vs Bang 2006 Gillespie hangs with Gilly who scores a ton as they are 250 runs behind and 7 down and they get close enough to eventually win.
Vs Pak 2004, Warne and Gillespie hang around with Langer long enough to take Aus from 230-6 to 381 and win the game.
Vs Eng 2005 Edgbaston as Warne and Brett Lee take Australia from sure loss at 8-175 to near win.
Vs Eng 2005 3rd test Warne and Lee hang with Ponting to draw the game.
Vs Eng 2005 4th test without Lee and Warne Australia likely lose by innings or easy 4th innings chase.
Vs SA 2006 3rd test Lee scores vital runs in both innings to win a close test.
Vs NZ 2001 3rd test without Warnes 99, Australia likely lose the game as they are struggling against a high score.
Vs Ind 2007/8, Aus tail with Symonds takes them from 6-134 to 463.
Vs Ind 2004, Aus are 7-350 in response to 705 and Gillespie helps takes them to 474 and eventually game drawn.
Vs Eng 2001 3rd test Gillespie hangs with Gilly to get them par with England in a low scoring contest.
Vs SL 99, Gillespie with Ponting save Aus from complete embarassment in the 1st innings
Vs WI 99 4th test Aus tail stretches the 1st innings which ends up being vital in winning the test.
There are more but I think I made the point.
1. I said Australia had one of the better tails.
2. This also proves.what I have said that batters like Warne and Marshall are more than good enough to man the nom 8 / 9 positions in any team, you don't need the "all rounder" level.
3. I've never said that lower order batting wasn't important. Just not to the point where it required the again, all rounder types. These average guys as I've mentioned were more than good enough.
4. There's an awful lot of "hangs around" being mentioned, like Walsh and Ambrose handing around with Lara, Leach with etc etc. yes, it happens, doesn't mean that you place a focus on it at the detriment of the bowlers, which historically hasn't been done.
5. A
lot of those innings were critical to setting up tests to be won, which the bowlers finished were able to complete.
Glenn McGrath break down of test wickets.
Bowled - 76
LBW - 113
Caught - 373
Shane Warne break down of test wickets.
Stumped - 36
Bowled - 46
LBW - 138
Caught - 418
Lower order runs have always been important, a lot of those examples didn't even reference runs, but rather players hanging around with top order batters to facilitate scores. It can bail a team out of a bad situation, but there have been teams, that managed to achieve greatness without the all rounder types, like Australia, WI, SA...
You give that 2002 Australia side a sub par or even average slip cordon, and they don't win the way they did. McGrath and Warne's games and results were melded to the success of their cordons. Warne never had anything short of elite tier catching. Same with the WI teams, and that SA 2008 squad. You mention Philander, one player along with Steyn, Morkel and Adams in the tail, but omit a top 5 cordon ever who snared Steyn's offerings.
You fail to acknowledge that with great fast bowlers taking the ball away, the primary mode, not a mode, the primary mode of dismissals is caught in the cordon. Hadlee, Lillee, Quartet, Marshall, Steyn, Ambrose, and teams build their teams accordingly.
Teams don't specially build their teams to stack the tail.
Steyn isn't Steyn without the cordon support, neither is McWarne, Lillee, Hadlee, the WI guys, none of them.
The last great test series was determined by which catches were taken and which ones weren't. For all the other stuff going on, and among all the auxialry skills, that's was the determinative factor.
