Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[ataraxia]

The short answer is no. It's not worth it. As evidenced by no one choosing one over him, ever.


The addition of a primary 5th bowling option at 6, compromises the primary role of the no. 6.

Sobers is a cheat code because he's making the team 100% on his batting alone, when you factor in his catching at slip he's one of the first 3 or 4 names on the sheet.

You then add a front line bowler who was world class for a decade in the middle of his batting peak. And that's your fifth bowler who can bowl 3 different styles as required.

Now that's an argument Hadlee can make, depending on preference, it's not one Imran can. That's the difference in the positioning of the arguments.

If you can make the team if you couldn't hold a bat, then yeah, we're adding the value and it's a cinch. If you can't, you're discussing compromises and if it's worth it.

I thought your number 1 priority was an attack that will take 20 wickets? 5 frontline bowlers is critical for that. It compromises batting, but so does selecting McGrath over Imran, for a much smaller gain in bowling quality.

 

[Coronis]

So that I'm clear.

The concept I'm speaking of, which I was very specific about btw, is not about selecting a single player, but rather selecting your entire bowling lineup based on batting averages.

Which sounds even more ridiculous the more it's repeated.

I’m not sure anyone is trying to do that. If anyone is, please feel free to correct me.

 

[Xix2565]

Well I can't say for other teams but the current Australian side uses 4 main bowlers & then gets the AR (Green/Marsh/Webster) to bowl around 10 overs an innings & its been working fine for them for several years. I just think that if you're not giving a specialist bowler a good chunk of overs (say 15+ a day) are they contributing enough with the ball to make up for that loss in batting?

I think if you were planning to go with just 4 pacemen you'd might be in some strife but with a spinner the total overs for a day should be covered. If you have a part timer come on instead of a genuine 5th bowler & they're only needed for ~5 overs that's not a big issue.
I do see it as an issue if the opposition has a big 120 over innings but that's less common & if you have an AR they can help with the load.

I just think for every additional bowler you add to your team that's overs you're taking away from another star. If the stats say you significantly drop off after 15 overs in a day I wouldn't have a problem with it but most pacers can get through 20 & if you're a machine like Hadlee or McGrath you can bowl plenty more than that.

I think Green/Marsh/Webster are far better 5th options than Waugh. So I'll still count them as part of the attack. And why are you worried about how much they should bowl? It's how much they can bowl that really matters. I do of course take ARs into account in discussing this, hence my comments about team balance. I'm always thinking first of an AR + 4 bowlers in these hypotheticals, not Waugh + Aussie quartet.

Part timers are more than ever getting carted around even with pitches being in their favour. If you feel like giving up free runs is good then we are at an impasse.

What are you even saying here???? How does having fresher bowlers bowling better spells take away from each other again?

 

[Xix2565]

Having a viable 5th bowling option is a plus, almost a must. A healthy Steve Waugh would have been a welcome bonus, no one's denying that.

That's not what's being argued by Bolo though. He's arguing about 5 primary bowling options rather than a batting all rounder like Waugh. Where again the value comes in just having the presence of one to assist with the rotations etc.

And no Gilchrist didn't want to bat higher, and from what I recall Australia didn't want him higher either. It would have unnecessarily shortened the batting lineup and fundamentally changed his role.

He was the sledge hammer after an ATG lineup, where he could just come out firing, the coup de gråce.

Why make it easy on the opposition.

Yeah, a 5th option being a bowling AR vs a batting AR is much better. Have you never seen India with Ashwin/Jadeja? Are you mentally blocked somewhere?

He probably would have if they had the options. The rest is just your imagination, which is hardly reflective of reality.

You say why make it easy when you think not having a better bowling attack is making it tougher? Bowlers matter far more to winning and your brilliant ass thinks a weaker bowling attack is totally making it hard just because of runs at no. 7 by Gilchrist.

 

[ataraxia]

I’m not sure anyone is trying to do that. If anyone is, please feel free to correct me.

I do that. I've got Sobers and Kallis opening the bowling, with Hammond first change.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I do that. I've got Sobers and Kallis opening the bowling, with Hammond first change.

OMG! I wrote but did not post the following:

"Before @kyear2 outs me, I'm going to put my hand up. It's me. My team will have Kallis and Sobers opening the bowling, and Hammond will be first-change!"

Great minds! LOL!

 

[Coronis]

I do that. I've got Sobers and Kallis opening the bowling, with Hammond first change.

Root and Border the spinners, presumably?

 

[ataraxia]

Root and Border the spinners, presumably?

They're not amongst my best 10 batsmen, so they don't make the team.

 

[Coronis]

They're not amongst my best 10 batsmen, so they don't make the team.

rip

 

[ataraxia]

I can't fathom how people think it right to sacrifice an ATG batting lineup to include extra bowling. To win a match, you need to score at least 1 run and that's very nearly guaranteed with my team.

 

[Coronis]

I can't fathom how people think it right to sacrifice an ATG batting lineup to include extra bowling. To win a match, you need to score at least 1 run and that's very nearly guaranteed with my team.

This is true. In fact you can take 20 wickets and still lose the game, easily.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is true. In fact you can take 20 wickets and still lose the game, easily.

Happens all the time in fact.

 

[kyear2]

I thought your number 1 priority was an attack that will take 20 wickets? 5 frontline bowlers is critical for that. It compromises batting, but so does selecting McGrath over Imran, for a much smaller gain in bowling quality.

And that's entirely your opinion to which you're entitled.

It's just one that the forum, the vast majority of pundits, historians and former players disagree with.

Lots of great teams won with 4 front line bowlers and a all rounder / part timer.

So the critical part may not be as critical as you believe.

 

[kyear2]

I’m not sure anyone is trying to do that. If anyone is, please feel free to correct me.

What exactly do you think BOLO, Ataraxia, Smalisha, Xix, Luffy etc are arguing except for that?

 

[ataraxia]

And that's entirely your opinion to which you're entitled.

It's just one that the forum, the vast majority of pundits, historians and former players disagree with.

Lots of great teams won with 4 front line bowlers and a all rounder / part timer.

So the critical part may not be as critical as you believe.

Please stop with the handwaving appeal to authority please. It's not convincing. What I desire is your own explanation as to why bowling is really important to you to the extent that you select McGrath over Imran but not to the extent that you pick an extra frontline bowler. You haven't remotely addressed that point.

 

[Coronis]

What exactly do you think BOLO, Ataraxia, Smalisha, Xix, Luffy etc are arguing except for that?

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

 

[ataraxia]

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

Only where the batting and fielding advantage outweighs the bowling advantage, a tradeoff that might be a novel consideration for some. Additionally, I think #batdeep selection is way more helpful at ATG level than in normal test selection since the differences between bowlers' bowling quality tend to be significantly smaller when looking at the best of the best.

 

[Xix2565]

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

I'd like a translation for this question that can explain kyear's gigabrain nonsense to my simple mind.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

Beyond the consistent misrepresentation of others' points, maybe the most ridiculous part of @kyear2 's rabid stance is that he believes ATG XI games will be quite low scoring. One would think that makes having a stronger lower order even more important but apparently not

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, a 5th option being a bowling AR vs a batting AR is much better. Have you never seen India with Ashwin/Jadeja? Are you mentally blocked somewhere?

He probably would have if they had the options. The rest is just your imagination, which is hardly reflective of reality.

You say why make it easy when you think not having a better bowling attack is making it tougher? Bowlers matter far more to winning and your brilliant ass thinks a weaker bowling attack is totally making it hard just because of runs at no. 7 by Gilchrist.

How does that work away the SC and especially helpful pitches?

The problem with your 5th bowling option being the a bowling all rounder is that on helpful pitches it's not as required, and now you're a batsman short where said bowling all rounder is more likely to struggle in the referenced helpful conditions. In less helpful conditions, it's likely to be a draw and you're less likely to be in a position to guarantee that, with again, a batsman short.

The 5th bowler is also likely to get substantial time with the new ball, and their primary duties are most likely shower spells to rest the front line operators and bowling in the dog overs. Seems like a waste of a batting spot, for minimal returns.

But since this is such a brilliant fool proof plan I'm sure you can point out to me all the AT selections where Imran is chosen ahead of Sobers. Where you're swapping a top 5 batsman of all time for an rpi of 27. At 6, for an AT squad.
And if not Immy, who is it, Pollock, Vertori, Jadeja? The only viable option has ever been Miller and even that's questionable.

And just so that we're clear, a better bowling attack is based on quality not quantity.

A thought process obviously lost on you.