Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[capt_Luffy]

@Bolo. @smash84 @subshakerz @capt_Luffy bet you idiots are still slowly recovering.

Currently in ICU from the burn

 

[smash84]

@Bolo. @smash84 @subshakerz @capt_Luffy bet you idiots are still slowly recovering.

I still don't know what hit me.

 

[subshakerz]

@Bolo. @smash84 @subshakerz @capt_Luffy bet you idiots are still slowly recovering.

Well he is supposedly ignoring me while mentioning my name every second post, so I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted.

 

[ataraxia]

With regards to the last actual strawman hypothetical question, there can never be such a player, because to achieve greatness in one requires a sacrifice for the other and again, it's never happened.

The thing is, if there was prescedence anywhere, at any point for such team construction to back it up, but it's never been seen as credible.

Most cricket teams have players who make the team on batting and bowling alone. There are thousands of team constructions around the world who fit around that.

It doesn't occur often at test-level or above, but it's clearly not impossible. If you were posting on CW 100 years ago would you say someone averaging 99 in tests is impossible? That 800 career wickets is impossible? You'd look silly if you did, and you'd be wrong. Just like if you didn't select Flintoff in an average test team, or AmbroseLara in an all-time XI, just because you'd necessarily have to sacrifice either batting or bowling.

So if AmbroseLara was available to you, would you select him? "Impossible" hypotheticals are as valid as possible hypotheticals after all.

 

[Xix2565]

5 bowlers > 4 when it's possible to have them tbh. The reason why India actually got a great Test side recently and it's embarrassing that there are people who want to act like having 5 good bowling options without having the same weaknesses with the bat at 7/8/9(?) is one of the stupidest things a cricket fan can do.

 

[kyear2]

You really like going off on tangents. You weaken the bowling by only playing 4. I weaken the bowling by playing ARs. Do you understand that these are both just alternative ways of strengthening the batting?

You play neither Lara nor Ambrose in your AT team. Neither make your team on primary. But you would play AmbroseLara. This means that don't believe the primary argument at its base level. You are just saying that there is nobody good enough. That's fine, make that argument. Don't hide behind principles you don't subscribe to.

Again I have to stress, this makes no damn sense.

Even if we go down the illogical tangent that you're implying, unless you're playing 5 bowlers you're also weakening the bowling, but twice. If you're playing 5 bowlers, but choosing them based on batting, you still have a lower quality attack.

There's a template to this at this point. 5 batsmen, a batting all rounder, a wicket-keeper batsman and 4 bowlers.

So everyone else who's following the insane tangent is also weakening the blowing twice?

Using 4 bowlers isn't weakening the bowling, it's the established and well proven best balance for a team. The no. 6 batsman is also primarily a batsman, so yes, that's where the weighting lies.

I could even understand an argument if you wanted to allocate the no. 8 spot as a bowling all rounder spot. But to suggest that I'am (and by extension everyone else on the forum) weakening the attack by playing "only" 4 front line bowlers, then the ones choosing them by batting average are "weakening" the attack twice.

The argument lacks logic and coherency.

You let the batsmen handle the batting and the bowlers handle the bowling. Otherwise you're just hurting the quality of both.

And again, this isn't a viable argument, because outside of about 10 people on this forum, the concept isn't one that's widely utilized, as the vast majority of pundits, former players etc understand the benefit of choosing the best attack.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

And again, this isn't a viable argument, because outside of about 10 people on this forum, the concept isn't one that's widely utilized, as the vast majority of pundits, former players etc understand the benefit of choosing the best attack.

The latest poll results don't really support this statement because 23/69 (or one-third) of the votes are for Imran so that's more than 10 people automatically, unless the poll has been infested by multis:



Speaking of multis, there's at least one who's an excellent poster (great knowledge and very fair in his assessments) who seems to have changed his mind over time or is wavering in his opinions, showing that the situation is not exactly clear-cut:

 

[kyear2]

5 bowlers > 4 when it's possible to have them tbh. The reason why India actually got a great Test side recently and it's embarrassing that there are people who want to act like having 5 good bowling options without having the same weaknesses with the bat at 7/8/9(?) is one of the stupidest things a cricket fan can do.

If there was ever a modern team that has the luxury of playing 5 specialist bats, a great wicketkeeper batsman and playing 5 specialists bowlers, with 3 of them even being more than handy with the bat, it was the great Australian team.

They had very arguably the greatest modern batting line up, and the best batting oriented wicketkeeper batsman of all time, with Gilly.

And even they eschewed going the 5 bowler route because you are still going in a batsman short.

Now if a team wants to go five bowlers, that's fine. That doesn't mean that going with 4 is weakening the bowling, not even remotely.

 

[subshakerz]

But to suggest that I'am (and by extension everyone else on the forum) weakening the attack by playing "only" 4 front line bowlers,

So Kyear apparently speaking for everyone

 

[kyear2]

The latest poll results don't really support this statement because 23/69 (or one-third) of the votes are for Imran so that's more than 10 people automatically, unless the poll has been infested by multis:

View attachment 47827

Speaking of multis, there's at least one who's an excellent poster (great knowledge and very fair in his assessments) who seems to have changed his mind over time or is wavering in his opinions, showing that the situation is not exactly clear-cut:

View attachment 47828

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying Imran isn't an option for the team.

Even Subz, and Smalisha (before they changed their mind to make a point), had Imran forming the attack with Marshall and McGrath.

Subz believes that Imran is one the best 3 bowling option as he provides reverse and that bumps him over Hadlee, and had more control than Steyn. He's still picking what be believes to be the best attack.

But the 3 leading candidates for selection, and by handsome margins, are the bowlers who most on the forum rate as the best 3 bowlers, regardless of batting.

McGrath is nearly doubling up on Imran, that isn't the consensus of a community that is predominantly #batdeep.

And while the two aforementioned believes it's because I have a dislike for a certain all rounder, but I just prefer specialists, and even for the all rounders, ones who can make the team based on their primary skills alone. And I think that's been borne out by real life teams as well as AT ones.

Miller generally doesn't make the all rounder spot ahead of Sobers, and most of the all time teams do generally select who they perceive to be the best bowlers.

I don't think that's a radical position to take. You need to take 20 wickets, and if every run counts, then what about every wicket?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If there was ever a modern team that has the luxury of playing 5 specialist bats, a great wicketkeeper batsman and playing 5 specialists bowlers, with 3 of them even being more than handy with the bat, it was the great Australian team.

They had very arguably the greatest modern batting line up, and the best batting oriented wicketkeeper batsman of all time, with Gilly.

And even they eschewed going the 5 bowler route because you are still going in a batsman short.

Now if a team wants to go five bowlers, that's fine. That doesn't mean that going with 4 is weakening the bowling, not even remotely.

That may be true, but as soon as they got beaten in the Flintoff Ashes, Australia starting picking Symonds and/or Watson in their test teams to have an allrounder.

 

[ataraxia]

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying Imran isn't an option for the team.

Even Subz, and Smalisha (before they changed their mind to make a point), had Imran forming the attack with Marshall and McGrath.

Subz believes that Imran is the best 3 bowling option as he provides reverse and that bumps him over Hadlee, and had more control than Steyn. He's still picking what be believes to be the best attack.

But the 3 leading candidates for selection, and by handsome margins, are the bowlers who most on the forum rate as the best 3 bowlers, regardless of batting.

McGrath is nearly doubling up on Imran, that isn't the consensus of a community that is predominantly #batdeep.

And while the two aforementioned believes it's because I have a dislike for a certain all rounder, but I just prefer specialists, and even for the all rounders, ones who can make the team based on their primary skills alone. And I think that's been borne out by real like teams as well as AT ones.

Miller generally doesn't make the all rounder spot ahead of Sobers, and most of the all time teams do generally select who they perceive to be the best bowlers.

I done think that's a radical position to take. You need to take 20 wickets, and if every run counts, then what about every wicket?

Well quite right. It isn't some dark magic that makes lower-order batting important. It's not ideology. I don't pick Imran because I hate all Indians or he was my hero in the 80s when I was sperm in my dad's testes. It's just a numbers game. And the numbers strongly favour compromising McGrath's slightly better bowling for Imran's incomparably better batting.

 

[subshakerz]

Well quite right. It isn't some dark magic that makes lower-order batting important. It's not ideology. I don't pick Imran because I hate all Indians or he was my hero in the 80s when I was sperm in my dad's testes. It's just a numbers game. And the numbers strongly favour compromising McGrath's slightly better bowling for Imran's incomparably better batting.

You have picked Hadlee I assume? Then McGrath becomes redundant.

 

[Xix2565]

If there was ever a modern team that has the luxury of playing 5 specialist bats, a great wicketkeeper batsman and playing 5 specialists bowlers, with 3 of them even being more than handy with the bat, it was the great Australian team.

They had very arguably the greatest modern batting line up, and the best batting oriented wicketkeeper batsman of all time, with Gilly.

And even they eschewed going the 5 bowler route because you are still going in a batsman short.

Now if a team wants to go five bowlers, that's fine. That doesn't mean that going with 4 is weakening the bowling, not even remotely.

They didn't because Steve Waugh wasn't a good all rounder when he could bowl and then stopped bowling due to injuries.

And the reason why their 4 man attack dominated is because their bowling attack was so much better relative to the rest of the competition then that they didn't need the extra bowler. If they had to play now or against a lot of good bowling attacks consistently they'd have considered a 5th bowler/AR and moved Gilchrist up to 6 like any sane, rational human being who knows about Test cricket would, in order to have the edge over them.

 

[kyear2]

Well quite right. It isn't some dark magic that makes lower-order batting important. It's not ideology. I don't pick Imran because I hate all Indians or he was my hero in the 80s when I was sperm in my dad's testes. It's just a numbers game. And the numbers strongly favour compromising McGrath's slightly better bowling for Imran's incomparably better batting.

And we disagree.

We can just leave it there.

If you want to say Hadlee, sure, he's not my choice but I can see the allure. There's little to no drop off.

But I think that when you're looking to win matches, bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, and I want the best chances to take 20 wickets, that's it. I'll let the batsmen take care of the runs.

 

[ataraxia]

And we disagree.

We can just leave it there.

If you want to say Hadlee, sure, he's not my choice but I can see the allure. There's little to no drop off.

But I think that when you're looking to win matches, bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, and I want the best chances to take 20 wickets, that's it. I'll let the batsmen take care of the runs.

As I've said, it's not really a matter of opinion – but if you want the best chance to take 20 wickets (and are willing to make draws become wins at the expense of more draws becoming losses), pick 5 proper bowlers. It's a very common team makeup, almost as common as 4. If you're struggling to take 20 wickets and afraid of a draw then the opponents will be batting for quite a long time. Using Sobers for 20+ overs is really not ideal.

 

[ataraxia]

You have picked Hadlee I assume? Then McGrath becomes redundant.

I'm sorry to inform you that that's not how cricket works.

 

[Xix2565]

As I've said, it's not really a matter of opinion – but if you want the best chance to take 20 wickets (and are willing to make draws become wins at the expense of more draws becoming losses), pick 5 proper bowlers. It's a very common team makeup, almost as common as 4. If you're struggling to take 20 wickets and afraid of a draw then the opponents will be batting for quite a long time. Using Sobers for 20+ overs is really not ideal.

I do think one thing to remember here is that teams haven't always had the talent to be able to have 5 bowlers who all fit together well. Quite often they didn't even have 4 good bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm sorry to inform you that that's not how cricket works.

Was just curious on your attack.

 

[subshakerz]

As I've said, it's not really a matter of opinion – but if you want the best chance to take 20 wickets (and are willing to make draws become wins at the expense of more draws becoming losses), pick 5 proper bowlers. It's a very common team makeup, almost as common as 4. If you're struggling to take 20 wickets and afraid of a draw then the opponents will be batting for quite a long time. Using Sobers for 20+ overs is really not ideal.

You don't need 5 ATG bowlers unless you want to pick two spinners. 4 ATG bowlers are sufficient with a good 5th bowler option