Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[reyrey]

The lower order batting wasn't exactly helpful, but they did select Thakur for his batting and it was an equal disaster in terms of him failing and being a down grade on any other possible bowling option.

Englands lower order added really valuable runs. Match situation would have felt completely different without those runs.

 

[ataraxia]

The funny thing about this test was that India's continued selection of Thakur (and Reddy) directly challenges kyear's idea that no teams throughout history sacrifice batting – which is, after all, his whole argument. Selecting either instead of Akash Deep is an incomparably greater blow to bowling quality than selecting Imran instead of McGrath, for a smaller batting boost.

I disagree with the selection, and it clearly turned out badly, but that's an entirely different point. The point is that teams sacrifice bowling quality for batting depth with regularity in the modern game, which is also the most logic-driven, deeply analysed version of cricket. Saying it's unprecedented is either incredibly out-of-touch or incredibly naïve.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Not sure the Thakur selection was a bad one on paper. His style of bowling should be suited to English conditions, and he should be a capable bat. He just failed to do either as well as he should have done in this Test.

 

[Xix2565]

Not sure the Thakur selection was a bad one on paper. His style of bowling should be suited to English conditions, and he should be a capable bat. He just failed to do either as well as he should have done in this Test.

No, it was bad on paper as well. He's older than you'd like, was dropped for exactly this type of performance (where he couldn't make runs or take wickets/be economical) before and his Ranji returns were largely based on minnow bashing a few teams. You could say he's not been used effectively with the ball (by taking the new ball) but he didn't show anything that suggests he's better than Siraj or even Prasidh in his spells.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t think anyone does. I just don’t think anyone else wants to vociferously argue for whatever’s more important out of these tertiary considerations.

Quite a few actually do, you don't even need to look that hard.

 

[subshakerz]

Quite a few actually do, you don't even need to look that hard.

Can you answer my question on Smith or Hammond vs Tendulkar?

 

[kyear2]

Englands lower order added really valuable runs. Match situation would have felt completely different without those runs.

Yes they did.

 

[kyear2]

The funny thing about this test was that India's continued selection of Thakur (and Reddy) directly challenges kyear's idea that no teams throughout history sacrifice batting – which is, after all, his whole argument. Selecting either instead of Akash Deep is an incomparably greater blow to bowling quality than selecting Imran instead of McGrath, for a smaller batting boost.

I disagree with the selection, and it clearly turned out badly, but that's an entirely different point. The point is that teams sacrifice bowling quality for batting depth with regularity in the modern game, which is also the most logic-driven, deeply analysed version of cricket. Saying it's unprecedented is either incredibly out-of-touch or incredibly naïve.

Yes, but them making an idiotic decision and sticking with it isn't quite the argument that you think it is.
He's basically a specialists no. 8, with the team either reluctant or scared to bowl him. Even with the other bowlers being either ineffective or expensive, he still wasn't utilized as a 4th bowling option should.

So no, it's a stupid ass strategy and idea which left then a bowler short. A 20 averaging batter would never be consistent enough to make up for the lack of bowling acumen.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, but them making an idiotic decision and sticking with it isn't quite the argument that you think it is.
He's basically a specialists no. 8, with the team either reluctant or scared to bowl him. Even with the other bowlers being either ineffective or expensive, he still wasn't utilized as a 4th bowling option should.

So no, it's a stupid ass strategy and idea which left then a bowler short. A 20 averaging batter would never be consistent enough to make up for the lack of bowling acumen.

What's your point, he already said he disagrees with the decision? His point was that teams do do this tactic commonly enough, and you didn't respond to that.

 

[Thala_0710]

Kimber's take on this topic (if anyone's interested):
Lower order batting is third and not as important as the other 2. It's tough to compare slip fielding vs the 5th bowler. As a whole cordon, the slip cordon is most important. However 1 slip fielder vs 1 5th bowler? 1 5th bowler wins, especially in a long series.

 

[Coronis]

Kimber's take on this topic (if anyone's interested):
Lower order batting is third and not as important as the other 2. It's tough to compare slip fielding vs the 5th bowler. As a whole cordon, the slip cordon is most important. However 1 slip fielder vs 1 5th bowler? 1 5th bowler wins, especially in a long series.

Hot takes

 

[kyear2]

Kimber's take on this topic (if anyone's interested):
Lower order batting is third and not as important as the other 2. It's tough to compare slip fielding vs the 5th bowler. As a whole cordon, the slip cordon is most important. However 1 slip fielder vs 1 5th bowler? 1 5th bowler wins, especially in a long series.

I can roll with that, seems more than reasonable.

As a whole, the slip cordon is indeed more valuable, but a fifth bowler is also a necessity for the rotation to function, as pointed out, especially for an entire series.

I've recently been thinking that even a 6th bowler has a not nonexistent value to a team.

Lower order batting over all (8/9) still doesn't match the value of a great 3 man cordon. If you can't take your catches you literally can't win tests.

 

[kyear2]

@subshakerz is kinda quiet on this one.

 

[kyear2]

India's fielding did them no favours at Headingley, but that wasn't their biggest problem

Slip catching is increasingly a specialist's job - and made more so because white-ball cricket doesn't have much of a place for it

www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Nice article by Greg Chappell.

Must have been reading some of the posts here, but yeah, vastly underrated and underappreciated skill of the game, and definitely a specialist position.

 

[subshakerz]

I can roll with that, seems more than reasonable.

As a whole, the slip cordon is indeed more valuable, but a fifth bowler is also a necessity for the rotation to function, as pointed out, especially for an entire series.

I've recently been thinking that even a 6th bowler has a not nonexistent value to a team.

Lower order batting over all (8/9) still doesn't match the value of a great 3 man cordon. If you can't take your catches you literally can't win tests.

Why are you comparing 1 position to 2 or 3 in the first place?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why are you comparing 1 position to 2 or 3 in the first place?

Yeah that's exactly the problem really. I can't see one slip fielder being as valuable as a good lower order bat. There's just not going to be enough chances created per match that go to one particular fielder for it to match a lower order batsman's production.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah that's exactly the problem really. I can't see one slip fielder being as valuable as a good lower order bat. There's just not going to be enough chances created per match that go to one particular fielder for it to match a lower order batsman's production.

That's until a catch is dropped and the course of a game changed.

The 5th bowler doesn't bowl every game far less take a wicket, no. 8's have games where they don't reach double figures in the first and don't get to bat the second innings. Imran played 88 tests and batted in 126 innings, and the further down the lineup, the worst that ration becomes.

It's less individual games and more impact over the length of a series.

All 3 aspects have their caveats.

Lower order batting is considerably less reliable than the top order and more likely to to shine in draws than feature in wins, additionally they don't pad up nearly as often.

5th bowlers is an automatic down grade to the primary operators and most don't approach e en 2 wickets per match. They're the weak link to an attack that generally gets the worst conditions of the ball and often match scenarios.

With regards to your point, the most important slip and the one comparable to the no. 8 / 5th bowler, is your second slip, who moves to first for the spinner. and yes, they generally do get enough chances to compare make them comparable in importance to either. They get the most chances and the more difficult ones. And even at third where they get the least amount of chances, they're the most difficult and are just as critical to take.

You've advocated batting down to no. 11, they get even less batting opportunities and if your no. 11 is consistently batting in critical situations you're likely loosing anyways and you have bigger issues.

TL. DR, yes tour 2nd slip is utilized enough to match the value of your no 8 batsman.

And unlike less consistent lower order batting which declines with upscaling of competition or difficult conditions, elite slip fielders don't suffer from that, and are more consistent and reliable.

 

[subshakerz]

TL. DR, yes tour 2nd slip is utilized enough to match the value of your no 8 batsman.

What if the no.8 averages 30 plus with the bat?

 

[Johan]

Kimber's take on this topic (if anyone's interested):
Lower order batting is third and not as important as the other 2. It's tough to compare slip fielding vs the 5th bowler. As a whole cordon, the slip cordon is most important. However 1 slip fielder vs 1 5th bowler? 1 5th bowler wins, especially in a long series.

are we sure you're not just Kimber acting like you're not Kimber?

 

[Thala_0710]

are we sure you're not just Kimber acting like you're not Kimber?

I don't rate Waugh that low