• 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.

Do tailend runs affect your cricketer rating?

Do tailend runs matter in assessing bowlers as cricketers?


  • Total voters
    22

subshakerz

International Coach
Reasonable
Yes. But I wonder, does for example Warne averaging 10 runs moreso than Murali over the course of an entire career translate into anything more than tiebreaker value? Because that average difference between bats would be seen as significant.

Why is it not so for tailenders, isn't it the same runs? Is it crazy to think an extra ten runs an innings actually translate into something net tangible over the course of a career?
 

Qlder

State Captain
Any team would be mental to pick Mathews over Warne.
This is where you "only look at end of career stats" guys don't get it. When Warne was finally selected over Matthews he had 6 Tests, 13 wkts @ 47.61. He wasn't yet the superstar to come so it was easy to see why Matthews was picked over him up until then
 

Brook's side

International Debutant
Yes. But I wonder, does for example Warne averaging 10 runs moreso than Murali over the course of an entire career translate into anything more than tiebreaker value? Because that average difference between bats would be seen as significant.

Why is it not so for tailenders, isn't it the same runs? Is it crazy to think an extra ten runs an innings actually translate into something net tangible over the course of a career?
Assuming they'll bat on average 1.5 times per game, then you're talking 15 runs difference.

Unless you can say yes Murali is going to be more effective as a bowler than Warne, but by less than 15 runs over the course of the match, then it's not an issue.

But we have different question here, and respectfully, I'd suggest the answers are obvious:

-Do lower order runs make someone a better cricketer YES
-Do lower order runs make someone a better bowler NO
-Do lower order runs determine selection THEY MAY DO IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES BUT NOT NORMALLY
 

subshakerz

International Coach
This is where you "only look at end of career stats" guys don't get it. When Warne was finally selected over Matthews he had 6 Tests, 13 wkts @ 47.61. He wasn't yet the superstar to come so it was easy to see why Matthews was picked over him up until then
Yeah but Warne from what I recall was being seen as a high talent who would eventually deliver very early on, by Benaud and others.
 

Brook's side

International Debutant
Yeh I was pretty much agreeing with you.

Wondering whether Greg Matthews, Tony Dodemaide and Simon O’Donnell might’ve been selected as bowlers ahead of better bowlers for batting ability.

Could be wrong. Think since then we’ve definitely selected the best bowlers.
They're all allrounders though!
 

kyear2

International Coach
They didn't play many tests.
So not just to you, but in general.

It would be fair to say that during their periods of dominance, that lower order batting or all rounders in general weren't a point of focus for neither the WI, Aus nor even SA.

Not to be a dick or derail the thread, but it's been discussed, laughed but undeniable that all 3 teams prioritized specialists, aggression and yes, slip fielding.

Not saying that's the only way to do it, but that's what has worked and is the template for success in the modern game.
 

Brook's side

International Debutant
I hadn't realised just how successful South Africa were over a c20 year period actually.
Might put a very basic summary together...
 

Ali TT

International Regular
I think the answer is in the thread title tbh "Do tailend runs matter in assessing bowlers as cricketers?"

If you're judging them as cricketers then obviously their batting matters.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
To my knowledge Australia has always picked their best 4 bowlers regardless of how well they bat. Otherwise Gillespie would have never been dropped first test after his double hundred and Neser would have been locked into #8 for last 3 years

Edit: and we definitely would never have the tail we had in last years Ashes, probably the worst tail for a long time

8. Cummins
9. Lyon
10. Boland
11. Hazlewood
This is a silly generalisation lol. I don't suppose Ashton Agar got picked for his last test for his bowling?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's one of those issues that probably doesn't matter when one's hypothetically assessing the merits of two ATGs. If I selected (say) CEL Ambrose ahead of GD McGrath it wouldn't be because Sir Curtly was a 9/10 and Narromine's leading chunterer was an 11.

However when actually selecting an XI to take the pitch it probably does (or should) play a small factor, or else one runs the risk of ending up with an 8-11 of Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins.
 

kyear2

International Coach
This is a silly generalisation lol. I don't suppose Ashton Agar got picked for his last test for his bowling?
One player and 5 tests.

It's not silly if that's been a philosophy for which there seems to be a track record to support.
 

Brook's side

International Debutant
To my knowledge Australia has always picked their best 4 bowlers regardless of how well they bat. Otherwise Gillespie would have never been dropped first test after his double hundred and Neser would have been locked into #8 for last 3 years

Edit: and we definitely would never have the tail we had in last years Ashes, probably the worst tail for a long time

8. Cummins
9. Lyon
10. Boland
11. Hazlewood
Obviously it's not why he was picked, but don't forget that Cummins' batting won Australia the 1st test last summer (and effectively the Ashes).
I don't think he's got enough credit for that tbh. Australia were pretty much gone in that game.
 

Top