Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[harsh.ag]

Yes, ATG matches have shown that definitively.

 

[trundler]

Think Engle has a valid point somewhat. Some players like Viv, Miller, and Imran would be operating at or near their best against an ATXI but others' stats might dip significantly.

Just guesswork and gut feeling this.

 

[smash84]

2 overs makes a difference. If he takes 4 wickets that's 8 overs, 16 if you want to include the other 8 that someone else is going to bowl from the other end.

That is just half a session from a total of 15 sessions in a test match.

Plus the other bowlers who will bowl in the side are also ATG.

 

[smash84]

In Tests that they bowled against each other, Imran bested Lillee, Hadlee and Marshall(marginally). He had the ability to raise his game to match the occasion. In ATG teams, temperament counts for more than talent or technique.

Not to mention his fantastic record against the best side of his era and one of the greatest sides ever to play the game.

 

[trundler]

Not to mention his fantastic record against the best side of his era and one of the greatest sides ever to play the game.

FFS, who gave smali the opportunity to fanboy over Imran?!

 

[Bolo]

That is just half a session from a total of 15 sessions in a test match.

Plus the other bowlers who will bowl in the side are also ATG.

2 overs per wicket difference might not be that problematic from a single bowler in an ATG lineup. But all the edges the ATGs have over each other are pretty small. Look at it for every bowler. It's 20 extra overs in an innings. Half a day plus lost vs an ATG lineup means more draws.

It also means you are left with a choice between tiring your bowlers out and having all of them underperform, or giving Sobers a whole bunch of this 20. Either way, it's going to have a noticable price.

 

[smash84]

2 overs per wicket difference might not be that problematic from a single bowler in an ATG lineup. But all the edges the ATGs have over each other are pretty small. Look at it for every bowler. It's 20 extra overs in an innings. Half a day plus lost vs an ATG lineup means more draws.

It also means you are left with a choice between tiring your bowlers out and having all of them underperform, or giving Sobers a whole bunch of this 20. Either way, it's going to have a noticable price.

It doesn't work like that though. Not every bowler is striking 2 overs later to add to 20 overs per innings. Plus you're also missing out the fact that Imran is bowling each over tighter in those 9 overs and so leaking less runs as well. That builds pressure for the other bowlers.

I just looked at Imran's career stats again and it reminded me just how good he was at his insane 13 year stretch. Real impact player

 

[Bolo]

It doesn't work like that though. Not every bowler is striking 2 overs later to add to 20 overs per innings. Plus you're also missing out the fact that Imran is bowling each over tighter in those 9 overs and so leaking less runs as well. That builds pressure for the other bowlers.

I just looked at Imran's career stats again and it reminded me just how good he was at his insane 13 year stretch. Real impact player

I'm not suggesting this is in play for every bowler. Swapping out any one ATG for another will barely have a noticable effect. I'm just highlighting while the effect on the team may seem to be small when looking at a single bowler, the gap between the two is vast.

Defenging Imran in other ways is fine cos he's awesome. Defending his strike rate specifically against Steyns doesn't make sense, or at least not by using the raw stats.

 

[smash84]

I'm not suggesting this is in play for every bowler. Swapping out any one ATG for another will barely have a noticable effect. I'm just highlighting while the effect on the team may seem to be small when looking at a single bowler, the gap between the two is vast.

Defenging Imran in other ways is fine cos he's awesome. Defending his strike rate specifically against Steyns doesn't make sense, or at least not by using the raw stats.

I wasn't defending his SR. Steyn's SR is significantly superior. I was just pointing out how the SR fits in the larger context and how just focusing on the SR doesn't matter as much in the grand scheme of the test match because there are other factors like the Economy Rate as well as the length of the test match etc.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This run by Imran is still bonkers to look at

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Bolo]

I wasn't defending his SR. Steyn's SR is significantly superior. I was just pointing out how the SR fits in the larger context and how just focusing on the SR doesn't matter as much in the grand scheme of the test match because there are other factors like the Economy Rate as well as the length of the test match etc.

Again, you have to look for the smallest of edges between the ATGs in terms of their impact on a game. You are comparing a group of players that are in an extremely close statistical grouping. In this context a 30% or whatever difference is enormous.

There are a number of ways in which you could reasonably argue Imran is equal to or superior to Steyn. It's just a different part of conversation- I'm replying to a statement on the sr specifically.

 

[smash84]

Again, you have to look for the smallest of edges between the ATGs in terms of their impact on a game. You are comparing a group of players that are in an extremely close statistical grouping. In this context a 30% or whatever difference is enormous.

There are a number of ways in which you could reasonably argue Imran is equal to or superior to Steyn. It's just a different part of conversation- I'm replying to a statement on the sr specifically.

Lol, I never disputed Steyn's superior SR. Just read my post that you have just quoted in your reply. It mentions that Steyn's SR is superior. There are no 2 ways about it. So i don't see what your point is when I agree that his SR is better?

 

[marc71178]

Steyn takes a wicket once in every seven overs he bowls; Imran does it once in every nine overs. There wickets per match reflects this difference; Imran bowls more overs, but takes less wickets.
Not even close, because I favour a strike bowler over a stock bowler (in comparison).

And of course you’ve factored in the different nature of the style of play when they both played haven’t you?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The problem with the batting deep theory is that it almost never actually works in practice. If it did then no one would ever pick specialist bowlers. McGrath would never have played a single Test match, Australia would have just picked Ian Harvey instead because the differences in the batting averages more than makes up for the differences in bowling, in theory. You pick your best bowlers, that's what wins games. Having a bit of a stronger batsman at no. 9 or 10 does **** all in practice for helping you win matches.

 

[trundler]

The problem with the batting deep theory is that it almost never actually works in practice. If it did then no one would ever pick specialist bowlers. McGrath would never have played a single Test match, Australia would have just picked Ian Harvey instead because the differences in the batting averages more than makes up for the differences in bowling, in theory. You pick your best bowlers, that's what wins games. Having a bit of a stronger batsman at no. 9 or 10 does **** all in practice for helping you win matches.

Exactly, picking Hadlee because he's (according to you) the better bowler is reasonable because he's a top-tier ATG himself but taking batting into account for a #11 doesn't make sense. Plus, at this level a bowling all-rounders batting wouldn't be worth much anyway so just pick the better bowler. Picking an all time XI isn't like formatting a team in EA Cricket. A player that's 8/10 and 6/10 in batting and bowling on paper contributes more but in practice I'd just have a 10/10 bat and 10/10 special bowler. Plus, the batting is strong enough as it is with Bradman and others. The saying goes bowlers win you matches so just pick the best damn bowlers. Having a #11 who can bat is as pointless in a real-world scenario as a having 5 front-line bowlers. Overkill. Wouldn't really be needed much.

Speaking of picking the best bowlers, the idea of having a fast bowling unit consisting of Marshall-McGrath-Steyn is growing on me more and more.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I understand that it's hard to reconcile for a rigid analytical mind why it might be the case, but it really seems to be. Mathematically going for someone who averages 22 with the ball and 30 with the bat over someone who averages 21 with the ball and 5 with the bat should just be common sense right?

my theory is that the difference between, say, a 21 average bowler and a 21.5 average bowler can add up to a lot more than it might seem like it should. That 0.5 could be the dismissal of a batsman that goes on to make a 100 or 150. Who knows, just a theory.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The problem with the batting deep theory is that it almost never actually works in practice.

Actually it works in practice every time they are asked to bat.

If it did then no one would ever pick specialist bowlers. McGrath would never have played a single Test match, Australia would have just picked Ian Harvey instead because the differences in the batting averages more than makes up for the differences in bowling, in theory. You pick your best bowlers, that's what wins games. Having a bit of a stronger batsman at no. 9 or 10 does **** all in practice for helping you win matches.

No McGrath would still get picked by virtue of his bowling strength and the fact he's not competing with Khan, Hadlee and Marshall for a place in the team. But batting still matters for a number 11 else Steve Waugh wouldn't have made Glenn McGrath his batting pupil.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I understand that it's hard to reconcile for a rigid analytical mind why it might be the case, but it really seems to be. Mathematically going for someone who averages 22 with the ball and 30 with the bat over someone who averages 21 with the ball and 5 with the bat should just be common sense right?

my theory is that the difference between, say, a 21 average bowler and a 21.5 average bowler can add up to a lot more than it might seem like it should. That 0.5 could be the dismissal of a batsman that goes on to make a 100 or 150. Who knows, just a theory.

It could. But that 20 run batting average difference could also be the difference between a century setting up a win, or a duck in a loss.

You don't have to like it as a philosophy for your ATG team. Some people do. Some people don't.

 

[smash84]

The only difference being that we are talking elite all rounders. Hadlee's bowling was every bit as good as McG. The batting just becomes the icing on the cake (fmd, I hope no more icing and cake jokes coming)

 

[Daemon]

Eid Mubarak smiley