• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best Attack

Select the best one


  • Total voters
    39

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
This is so disingenuous though. Even ATG bats arent going to be consistently scoring in these games. The point as everyone gets is that Imran will be scoring a decent amount more than Steyn regularly, and those runs will be more valuable if scores are averaging 250.


So you disavow your previous position, fine. One year aint that long tho. Strikes me like you decided your previous position isn't convenient.


Okay, what would be the merits of Imran's batting in an ATG game then? Or does it have no merits?
I thought I posted a reasonable conciliatory statement, it's a matter of personal preference, but that's not good enough for your, and I quote "patriotic sensibilities"

And please stop with this "everyone gets", disingenuous nonsense, 66% of those polled in this thread voted against the Imran option. It's not the slam dunk you want to pretend it is.

I literally said there are 4 viable options, it's comes down to preference, but that's not good enough for you because I have to agree than Imran is a lock and inarguable. But he's not and it isn't.

I don't know if it will be low scoring, but even looking at the two XI's @Prince EWS and I selected, those teams aren't getting consistently blown out for 250. And in the instances that they are, and this directly answers your question, of the ATGs are struggling, the no 8 isn't going to be giving consistent or substantive contributions to make a difference.

Again, as a point of preference, I want the best bowling attack, and I may even have got that wrong, but I want the attack that compliments each other the best and best to take 20 wickets for the least amount of runs and time.

I don't care what you think about my opinions.

I don't see the over riding benefits. How hard is this to understand, he's a viable option, he's not mine. If he were like Sobers and could make the team as a bowler alone, on top of being the batsman he is, there wouldn't be an argument. But that isn't the case and literally everyone has their own criteria for the 3rd spot. Hadlee is the better bowler, I gave the reason I chose Steyn, you give the reason you choose Imran, others why they choose Wasim, why can't you accept that not everyone has to agree with you?
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
But that isn't the case and literally everyone has their own criteria for the 3rd spot. Hadlee is the better bowler, I gave the reason I chose Steyn, you give the reason you choose Imran, others why they choose Wasim, why can't you accept that not everyone has to agree with you?
I want Iguodala.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
Yes, because we got it wrong, it's not the top 6 that counts, it's the bottom 4.

So obvious looking at all the success that strategy has...... Not brought about?
Your ATG side's tail consists of a #9, a #10, a #11, and a really bad #11. That would be lambasted in reality.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Oh I was thinking Hadlee instead of Marshall lol.

At the level they are selected to play at, that is two #10s and two #11s.
Nah its really not. The ATG teams aren’t selecting bowlers based on batting acumen. Similar to irl teams, the batting is a nice bonus but not the primary concern. The overall batting standard in the tail would likely actually drop a bit as many of the players who have been historically good tailenders were relatively mediocre bowlers, and many of the top bowlers are mediocre to poor batsmen.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Your ATG side's tail consists of a #9, a #10, a #11, and a really bad #11. That would be lambasted in reality.
I have two really good no. 8's, good enough that they served the role in the best two teams ever. The no 10, is a no. 10, does it matter? And the no. 11 is the 2nd best bowler ever...

Legitimate question, how far down the order would you factor in batting? At some point aren't we choosing bowlers based purely on their primary skill?
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Nah its really not. The ATG teams aren’t selecting bowlers based on batting acumen. Similar to irl teams, the batting is a nice bonus but not the primary concern. The overall batting standard in the tail would likely actually drop a bit as many of the players who have been historically good tailenders were relatively mediocre bowlers, and many of the top bowlers are mediocre to poor batsmen.

Don't know why this is difficult to grasp tbh.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
I have two really good no. 8's, good enough that they served the role in the best two teams ever. The no 10, is a no. 10, does it matter? And the no. 11 is the 2nd best bowler ever...

Legitimate question, how far down the order would you factor in batting? At some point aren't we choosing bowlers based purely on their primary skill?
If you think that having a #8 averaging ~13 (what Marshall would probably average against a Mars team of a similar calibre), ok, but I imagine you don't.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
If you think that having a #8 averaging ~13 (what Marshall would probably average against a Mars team of a similar calibre), ok, but I imagine you don't.
He and Warne are useful enough that we don't have 4 rabbits, while having what I believe to be the best attack. They can offer enough resistance that it's not a procession.

You would prefer to choose the bowling attacking based on batting acumen, to gain, according to some here, an extra 50 runs. First it's a hard disagree on the total, second, how much extra runs are you giving up by not selecting the best bowlers? I'm guessing more than 50 over the course of an innings.

Your opposition is the best of the best, you want your best bowlers, with the best tools and traits to get them out. I don't have an issue with having extra runs, once I don't have to sacrifice witckets to get them.

Your next argument is that all of them are basically equal. IMO there's a solid, and tiered top 3. I believe, as does most of the forum, that Marshall and McGrath are not only the best two bowlers of all time, but also would compliment each other the best. They have the best tools, traits and yes intangibles.

How much runs is that worth? Again, more than 50 on my opinion. I'm not switching them out for anything.

The 3rd spot. If it's the best bowler period, I'm no doubt going for Hadlee, that's not even up for discussion. But many here believe that reverse swing is a useful skill in this scenario.

So that brings us to 3 bowlers, my preference...

Steyn. He was aggressive, a sterling s/r of 42, he was always attacking and mastered both conventional and reverse swing, making him a threat at all stages of the innings. His record in India was brilliant and he compliments the other two bowlers perfectly.

Your preference is Imran, while not rated here quite as highly as Steyn, he too mastered the art of reverse swing, and while the others discussed were primarily proponents of away swing, Imran for the most part brought it in. His strongest claim to the spot is by virtue of his batting, for which he represents an upgrade over Steyn.

The final option is generally Wasim. He made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts, and was probably the most gifted and skilled of all the quicks. He beings left handed variety, subtle movement and yes mastery of reverse. He also brings some credentials with the bat, falling in between Steyn and Imran in that regard.

So for you and I guess the main question is, what kind of out put with the bat do we believe Imran is capable of, especially in comparison to Steyn and does Steyn's bowling make up for that difference.

I believe it more than does so, I imagine you feel the opposite. I don't see Imran scoring runs substantially or consistently in these scenarios, and with the ridiculous strength of the batting line up and with Gilly at 7, it affords you the privilege and luxury to just choose your best attack. Now if you believe Imran is a better bowler than Steyn, then fine, I just perosnally don't.

That's basically it. No hate or conspiracies. I look forward to your response.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
He and Warne are useful enough that we don't have 4 rabbits, while having what I believe to be the best attack. They can offer enough resistance that it's not a procession.

You would prefer to choose the bowling attacking based on batting acumen, to gain, according to some here, an extra 50 runs. First it's a hard disagree on the total, second, how much extra runs are you giving up by not selecting the best bowlers? I'm guessing more than 50 over the course of an innings.

Your opposition is the best of the best, you want your best bowlers, with the best tools and traits to get them out. I don't have an issue with having extra runs, once I don't have to sacrifice witckets to get them.

Your next argument is that all of them are basically equal. IMO there's a solid, and tiered top 3. I believe, as does most of the forum, that Marshall and McGrath are not only the best two bowlers of all time, but also would compliment each other the best. They have the best tools, traits and yes intangibles.

How much runs is that worth? Again, more than 50 on my opinion. I'm not switching them out for anything.

The 3rd spot. If it's the best bowler period, I'm no doubt going for Hadlee, that's not even up for discussion. But many here believe that reverse swing is a useful skill in this scenario.

So that brings us to 3 bowlers, my preference...

Steyn. He was aggressive, a sterling s/r of 42, he was always attacking and mastered both conventional and reverse swing, making him a threat at all stages of the innings. His record in India was brilliant and he compliments the other two bowlers perfectly.

Your preference is Imran, while not rated here quite as highly as Steyn, he too mastered the art of reverse swing, and while the others discussed were primarily proponents of away swing, Imran for the most part brought it in. His strongest claim to the spot is by virtue of his batting, for which he represents an upgrade over Steyn.

The final option is generally Wasim. He made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts, and was probably the most gifted and skilled of all the quicks. He beings left handed variety, subtle movement and yes mastery of reverse. He also brings some credentials with the bat, falling in between Steyn and Imran in that regard.

So for you and I guess the main question is, what kind of out put with the bat do we believe Imran is capable of, especially in comparison to Steyn and does Steyn's bowling make up for that difference.

I believe it more than does so, I imagine you feel the opposite. I don't see Imran scoring runs substantially or consistently in these scenarios, and with the ridiculous strength of the batting line up and with Gilly at 7, it affords you the privilege and luxury to just choose your best attack. Now if you believe Imran is a better bowler than Steyn, then fine, I just perosnally don't.

That's basically it. No hate or conspiracies. I look forward to your response.
I hate to stress the point but are you seriously fine with a tail averaging 13, 12, 9, and 5? There are very very few tails in test history that are worse.

Consistently teams have opted for massive bowling sacrifices in favour of a lower-order bat. Thakur, Moeen, Agar, etc., bad bowlers somehow getting games in strong bowling outfits. I find it really hard to fathom that comparatively what we're dealing with here with evaluating the bowling quality of ATG bowlers is anything but splitting hairs.

Oh and please don't feel compelled to put that much effort into your responses. I really don't want to feel like (for a tennis analogy) I'm tapping back smashes.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
I hate to stress the point but are you seriously fine with a tail averaging 13, 12, 9, and 5? There are very very few tails in test history that are worse.

Consistently teams have opted for massive bowling sacrifices in favour of a lower-order bat. Thakur, Moeen, Agar, etc., bad bowlers somehow getting games in strong bowling outfits. I find it really hard to fathom that comparatively what we're dealing with here with evaluating the bowling quality of ATG bowlers is anything but splitting hairs.

Oh and please don't feel compelled to put that much effort into your responses. I really don't want to feel like (for a tennis analogy) I'm tapping back smashes.

To your first point, how many players are you replacing exactly?

Because you're including no.s 10 and 11. So at no point are we allowed to select bowlers based on their bowling? Because then the entire exercise is ridiculous. We're acting as if we're the chairman of selectors and coach of this squad, and you're telling me that we're not selecting a single bowler based solely on that skill. So Glenn McGrath, one of the two greatest bowlers ever, and the main reason for one of the two greatest teams of all time becoming just that, isn't getting selected? That's just crazy to me.

You say consistently and yet mention just 3 names, two of whom were not regulars, but I'll touch on each.

Thakur has played 11 tests in 6 years and is no better a batsman than Marshall. So no.

Agar has played 5 tests in 10 years, and not getting a regular play once everyone is fit and available. So again, no.

Ali isn't a primary bowler, more often being the 4th or 5th option and his place was only viable because of the other all rounders above him and proves what I've said about bits and pieces players / all rounders.

But how about looking for examples from actual successful teams. The West Indies, Australia, South Africa... None, and I mean none, of them sacrificed bowling for batting. So no, teams have not consistently opted for bowling sacrifices for lower order batting, not good ones at least.

And in instances that they have, it's for weak or inconsistent batting lineups, not the greatest collection of batsmen ever assembled.

And as per your comment about strong bowling units, I've actually taken my entire attack from the three best multi series bowling attacks and teams since the second world war. Strange how they were able to be the driving forces and the tails for the three great teams but wouldn't be here. None of those teams had "bowling all rounders" either, and in the case of Marshall and Warne they actually filled the no. 8 role for those teams. Were they not successful? I mean, were taking the best bowlers and lower order batsmen from the two greatest teams ever yet you think it would be insufficient for a battle of the best vs the best? The quartet, the Marshall led attacks, McWarne and co, all were obviously poor by your reckoning, yet they somehow managed to succeed...

So yes, I'm fully and seriously fine with a tail of Marshall, Warne, Steyn and McGrath. And if they can't get it done, Hadlee can always come in for Steyn if he's struggling with the ball, and he could bolster the batting as required.

But I can't stress this enough... To say that your batting lineup is struggling to score runs consistently, and somehow your first response would be to change the no. 8, is a little counter initiative. You have bigger problems.

And no, I'm not tapping back smashes, I'm returning them for winners.

See Musetti v Djoker...
 

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
He and Warne are useful enough that we don't have 4 rabbits, while having what I believe to be the best attack. They can offer enough resistance that it's not a procession.

You would prefer to choose the bowling attacking based on batting acumen, to gain, according to some here, an extra 50 runs. First it's a hard disagree on the total, second, how much extra runs are you giving up by not selecting the best bowlers? I'm guessing more than 50 over the course of an innings.

Your opposition is the best of the best, you want your best bowlers, with the best tools and traits to get them out. I don't have an issue with having extra runs, once I don't have to sacrifice witckets to get them.

Your next argument is that all of them are basically equal. IMO there's a solid, and tiered top 3. I believe, as does most of the forum, that Marshall and McGrath are not only the best two bowlers of all time, but also would compliment each other the best. They have the best tools, traits and yes intangibles.

How much runs is that worth? Again, more than 50 on my opinion. I'm not switching them out for anything.

The 3rd spot. If it's the best bowler period, I'm no doubt going for Hadlee, that's not even up for discussion. But many here believe that reverse swing is a useful skill in this scenario.

So that brings us to 3 bowlers, my preference...

Steyn. He was aggressive, a sterling s/r of 42, he was always attacking and mastered both conventional and reverse swing, making him a threat at all stages of the innings. His record in India was brilliant and he compliments the other two bowlers perfectly.

Your preference is Imran, while not rated here quite as highly as Steyn, he too mastered the art of reverse swing, and while the others discussed were primarily proponents of away swing, Imran for the most part brought it in. His strongest claim to the spot is by virtue of his batting, for which he represents an upgrade over Steyn.

The final option is generally Wasim. He made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts, and was probably the most gifted and skilled of all the quicks. He beings left handed variety, subtle movement and yes mastery of reverse. He also brings some credentials with the bat, falling in between Steyn and Imran in that regard.

So for you and I guess the main question is, what kind of out put with the bat do we believe Imran is capable of, especially in comparison to Steyn and does Steyn's bowling make up for that difference.

I believe it more than does so, I imagine you feel the opposite. I don't see Imran scoring runs substantially or consistently in these scenarios, and with the ridiculous strength of the batting line up and with Gilly at 7, it affords you the privilege and luxury to just choose your best attack. Now if you believe Imran is a better bowler than Steyn, then fine, I just perosnally don't.

That's basically it. No hate or conspiracies. I look forward to your response.
50 RPI is a lot. It's Viv's real world batting average, not his expected RPI.

If 50 was accurate, you could play Hadlee, Imran and Steyn/Mcgrath in place of Viv and Steyn/Mcgrath without losing any batting. Which would give you vastly superior bowling.

What RPI are you expecting Hadlee + Imran to add if you don't buy into 50? And, as a sanity check, how many from your worst specialist bat?
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
50 RPI is a lot. It's Viv's real world batting average, not his expected RPI.

If 50 was accurate, you could play Hadlee, Imran and Steyn/Mcgrath in place of Viv and Steyn/Mcgrath without losing any batting. Which would give you vastly superior bowling.

What RPI are you expecting Hadlee + Imran to add if you don't buy into 50? And, as a sanity check, how many from your worst specialist bat?
The fact that you believe you can replace one of your specialists bats with an additional lower order bat, yet get a net gain in runs produced is absolutely and incredibly insane...

The real interesting part is the belief that no matter what's happening in the top order, your 8 or 9 solves it and would lead to consistent success.

This would be like going to a selection meeting after being bowled out for 180 to lose the match, and suggesting with a straight face that we need to replace McGrath with Hadlee.

That's like changing the curtains of the house is burning down.

@ataraxia referenced the consistent selection process of giving up bowling for batting in good teams, I would suggest that isn't true, and a hall mark of great teams have been to select their best attacks, regardless of batting and rely on them to bowl the opposition out for as cheaply as possible, and allow your bats to score the runs.

Never once have I heard that the quarter wasn't viable because they didn't score enough runs, nor McWarne, or Walsh was a liability because he couldn't bat. He batted at 11 🙄.

The guys chosen are based on their numbers, skill sets, compatibility, traits and yes, intangibility.
 

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
The fact that you believe you can replace one of your specialists bats with an additional lower order bat, yet get a net gain in runs produced is absolutely and incredibly insane...

The real interesting part is the belief that no matter what's happening in the top order, your 8 or 9 solves it and would lead to consistent success.

This would be like going to a selection meeting after being bowled out for 180 to lose the match, and suggesting with a straight face that we need to replace McGrath with Hadlee.

That's like changing the curtains of the house is burning down.

@ataraxia referenced the consistent selection process of giving up bowling for batting in good teams, I would suggest that isn't true, and a hall mark of great teams have been to select their best attacks, regardless of batting and rely on them to bowl the opposition out for as cheaply as possible, and allow your bats to score the runs.

Never once have I heard that the quarter wasn't viable because they didn't score enough runs, nor McWarne, or Walsh was a liability because he couldn't bat. He batted at 11 🙄.

The guys chosen are based on their numbers, skill sets, compatibility, traits and yes, intangibility.
I'm pointing out what the number you quoted add up to. I gave no opinion on whether they were right. I'm asking what you think the right numbers are. This is a very long post to not answer the question.
 

Top