Hammond vs Kallis

[Prince EWS]

my own rando contribution to this discussion is that SPD Smith will be mercilessly targeted by bouncers in an ATG team and he will be ruthlessly exposed due to it

Steve Smith will never be selected in such a team in the first place because of his low standardised average tbh.

#muhroads

 

[Bolo.]

Tbf, the real reason this discussion won't have any resolution is because I rate Imran much higher purely as a bowler than other people do. It's built on a premise that we cant agree on anyway.

I rate Imran lower. I wouldn't particularly object to leaving him out of a top ten quicks list, but the only reason I would consider not putting him in my world XI is cos of his time as a batting AR, and being unsure if you are going to get a frontline bowler to balance. Which is really, really stupid logic since he had a full career as a frontliner before it. And is even stupider considering I would likely pick him as a batting AR if he had made a whole career of playing like his last few years.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tbf, the real reason this discussion won't have any resolution is because I rate Imran much higher purely as a bowler than other people do. It's built on a premise that we cant agree on anyway.

I rate Imran very slightly lower McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee. But only just. I've got him about equal with Ambrose and Davo (although I think Davo had a different role which I won't go into right now).

I think, at least Bradman aside, he was the greatest Test cricketer to ever grace this earth. I do slightly worry though that the bowling gap will effectively be widened as we go up in quality though. Woakes isn't really worse than Broaderson in domestic cricket but he sure was in Tests. Ronnie Irani was a much better domestic cricketer than Marcus Trescothick. It's in some ways impossible to guess how players would actually scale up but we should be keeping this sort of stuff in mind.

I would also like to mention that I've been thinking that an ATG World XI selection isn't just one level up, it's two. One level up would either be a World XI at any given time or a country's ATG XI. Both at once is going into the fifth dimension.

 

[kyear2]

Let us say you are touring a place where you know the results are going to be low-scoring on either side regardless of the four main bowlers you select.

Wouldn't your priority be stacking your batting lineup with sufficient depth?

Genuinely sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran averages 38 and Marshall 19 in real tests, in which, let's assume 300 is an average score. If we assume in ATG games that 200 is an average score, Imran averages 27 and Marshall 15 or something, those 12 extra runs are now extremely valuable because of the assumption that the games are lower scoring and even the ATG batsmen aren't delivering their usual numbers.

Mostly agree but there is no way Marshall averages 15 against an ATG XI, he will be lucky to average double digits IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

So if the bowlers are inherently more valuable, maximising the bowling quality should be priority. I’m sharing the opinion with PEWS that secondary skills in particular diminish in value as the competition level rises - shockingly there are far more allrounders comparitively at lower levels than at test level.

And the counter is that this is reductionist and detached from ground realities of the game when all-round play is almost always considered.

 

[The Sean]

Tbf, the real reason this discussion won't have any resolution is because I rate Imran much higher purely as a bowler than other people do. It's built on a premise that we cant agree on anyway.

Yep, this is my view as well.

 

[Bolo.]

Again I’m not convinced games would necessarily be lower scoring than tests. In any case, I think its generally understood that bowlers individually are more valuable than batsmen? (excepting Don) e.g would you rather have David Warner or Zaheer Khan (idk about these examples tbh, theres probably better relative to one another) having to join your squad as the 11th player?

So if the bowlers are inherently more valuable, maximising the bowling quality should be priority. I’m sharing the opinion with PEWS that secondary skills in particular diminish in value as the competition level rises - shockingly there are far more allrounders comparitively at lower levels than at test level.

Obviously in this particular argument with regard to Imran vs anyone else it comes down to how much perceived value his extra runs have over his perceived shortcomings as a bowler.

Bowling and batting are inherently equally valuable.

The reason bowlers are more valuable than bats is because everyone bats, and not everyone bowls. In a conversation about the value that bowlers add with the bat, this observation is out of place.

 

[subshakerz]

Yep, this is my view as well.

Same here. But I think it is very close between Imran/Steyn/Ambrose

 

[kyear2]

My point is that Imran would end up averaging mid-20s in the ATG XI in a real batting scenario, consistent with all bats averaging at least 10 points below their regular averages.

Against WI who ranged from 2 to 4 worldclass pacers in what he faced, he averaged 21, 29, 28, 22 and 50 in the series played.

Against Lillee led Australia, he averaged 17, 32, 27 and 56.

Against Hadlee led NZ, he averaged 35 and 140.

So why am I wrong?

Because from a casual glance at what he did vs NZ, he feasted on drawn high scoring runs feasts at the end of his career.

You said earlier that Warne and Marshall feasted and skied down hill in low stress situations to score heavily. I asking if Imran did the same.

And also are those averages in chronological order? Noticed a trend

 

[subshakerz]

Because from a casual glance at what he did vs NZ, he feasted on drawn high scoring runs feasts at the end of his career.

You said earlier that Warne and Marshall feasted and skied down hill in low stress situations to score heavily. I asking if Imran did the same.

And also are those averages in chronological order? Noticed a trend

The NZ one was one series. I gave several series in chronological order where ATG pacers were involved to show him averaging mid-20s is no stretch at all.

What do you think Imran would average at 8 in an ATG XI?

 

[Prince EWS]

I rate Imran very slightly lower McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee. But only just. I've got him about equal with Ambrose and Davo (although I think Davo had a different role which I won't go into right now).

I think, at least Bradman aside, he was the greatest Test cricketer to ever grace this earth. I do slightly worry though that the bowling gap will effectively be widened as we go up in quality though. Woakes isn't really worse than Broaderson in domestic cricket but he sure was in Tests. Ronnie Irani was a much better domestic cricketer than Marcus Trescothick. It's in some ways impossible to guess how players would actually scale up but we should be keeping this sort of stuff in mind.

I would also like to mention that I've been thinking that an ATG World XI selection isn't just one level up, it's two. One level up would either be a World XI at any given time or a country's ATG XI. Both at once is going into the fifth dimension.

Maybe I should just make an edit but I think the people I most want to read this have already read my above post.

I think we're effectively doing the equivalent of guessing who will be a good Test cricketer based on local club cricket.

We should definitely keep doing that, because it's fun! I do it when I go to local club cricket games. But it's actually a pretty different question to, "Who are the most valuable players in this comp?"

A bowler who works really hard on his batting but has a low ceiling might average 25 with the bat in grade cricket but be outclassed as it scales up to Tests and average 8. But someone with a good eye who doesn't take it seriously might just average 18 all the way up. I think this is basically the Mark Wood vs Jack Leach paradigm.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Woakes averages 27 in Tests. I think Imran would probably be Woakes-in-Tests standard as a batsman a level up.

That's seriously useful, but only if he doesn't also become Woakes-in-Tests standard as a bowler. I don't think he would be which is why I'm still picking him, but it is a useful case study.

And a bit of an aside but I never thought I'd end up talking about Woakes so much in the context of ATG World XIs. @Red_Ink_Squid hi!

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Sachin
Sobers
Woakes
Kallis
Gilchrist
Imran
Marshall
O'Reilly

 

[kyear2]

Yes when I say regardless of the four bowlers, I am saying in your regular bowling pool, not some part-timers bowling.

In a real game, we almost always look at the all-round package and how it adds to the balance of the team.

What you are literally saying is that In a hypothetical series of the highest calibre, where you want the absolute best of the best, that the batting of the bowlers is more important than their primary skills.

Ok, and I'm done.

And re the last point, no you don't. You try to create a balance, but you weigh the primary skills first. And for some reason, a few of you only see it necessary to do that with the bowlers, no other balance is required.

 

[subshakerz]

This is not entirely inaccurate but a pretty unfair summation on the whole. The 4 hundreds you refer to are:

1. This one vs an ATG standard attack of Marshall/Croft/Garner/Clarke where he took Pakistan from 95/5 to 369. Absolutely no way Warne or Marshall would even be able to fluke a hundred like this in an ATG XI game (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-west-indies-1st-test-63272/full-scorecard)

2. vs India where Pakistan were 273/7 and ended up getting 487 because of Imran's hundred (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...dia-vs-pakistan-1st-test-63452/full-scorecard)

3. again vs India where Pakistan were 367/5. Probably downhill skiing but they were responding to 370 from India, so I'd still argue this as a very valuable innings (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...kistan-vs-india-3rd-test-63331/full-scorecard)

4. vs England. This is 100% inarguably downhill skiing (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...and-vs-pakistan-5th-test-63465/full-scorecard)

Maybe only 1 or maybe 2 of the 6 hundreds are of low worth imo.

And then in Adelaide where he dug Pakistan out of a hole.

AUS vs PAK Cricket Scorecard, , 2nd Test at Adelaide, January 19 - 23, 1990

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, AUS vs PAK, Pakistan tour of Australia 1989/90 at Adelaide Oval dated January 19 - 23, 1990.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[subshakerz]

And re the last point, no you don't. You try to create a balance, but you weigh the primary skills first. And for some reason, a few of you only see it necessary to do that with the bowlers, no other balance is required.

All of us agree with weighing the primary skills first. We all see it as close enough that his batting becomes a defining factor.

The onus was on you to show how the difference between Imran's bowling and others is more in value than the runs he would score. You haven't gone there.

Apparently for you, the gulf in Imran's bowling to the others is so considerable that it justifies weakening the tail. Please explain that gulf.

 

[Bolo.]

Because from a casual glance at what he did vs NZ, he feasted on drawn high scoring runs feasts at the end of his career.

You said earlier that Warne and Marshall feasted and skied down hill in low stress situations to score heavily. I asking if Imran did the same.

And also are those averages in chronological order? Noticed a trend

Na. He improved.

Bishop/Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall is (considering form), the best 4 bowlers ever to be in attack together that I know of*. Walsh is an ATG in my book, and he is the clear weak link.

*Not claiming them as the best attack ever, cos variety and 5th+ bowler count. But also not saying this wasn't the best attack ever... not sure

 

[kyear2]

Na. He improved.

Bishop/Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall is (considering form), the best 4 bowlers ever to be in attack together that I know of*. Walsh is an ATG in my book, and he is the clear weak link.

*Not claiming them as the best attack ever, cos variety and 5th+ bowler count. But also not saying this wasn't the best attack ever... not sure

No, that trend was based on another argument all together that I wouldn't being up now.

Ok, lots of posts to reply to and it 3:30 am

 

[Bolo.]

No, that trend was based on another argument all together that I wouldn't being up now.

Ok, lots of posts to reply to and it 3:30 am

Gotcha, fair enough.

Go to bed, you can win some arguments tomorrow. You have already lost if you keep debating at this hour, regardless of how good your points are.

 

[kyear2]

That is your argument sure, and I agree with you, mostly. The problem is kyear thinks ATG games will be lower scoring. If that's the case, even if the statistical gap between Imran and Marshall reduces, there's arguably just as much value added by Imran's batting in ATG scenario as in real test matches.

Imran averages 38 and Marshall 19 in real tests, in which, let's assume 300 is an average score. If we assume in ATG games that 200 is an average score, Imran averages 27 and Marshall 15 or something, those 12 extra runs are now extremely valuable because of the assumption that the games are lower scoring and even the ATG batsmen aren't delivering their usual numbers.

I just don't think "ATG XI games will be low scoring" and "ATG XI batting depth doesn't matter" are positions that you can hold together. There's a strong argument that the marginal loss in bowling quality in games that are expected to be low scoring is not as important.

The reason I believe these games would be low scoring is precedence.
In cricket, batsmen stats are more impacted by great bowlers, than great bowlers are impacted by batsmen. I should qualify that by saying great fast bowlers. Look at Lara, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, literally all of them.

And for me the batting depth matters less for two reasons.
1. I would go for the absolute best bowlers with the possible exception of the no 8 position, and that person, would be Hadlee over McGrath, but then I also believe McGrath is the 2nd best pacer ever and him and Marshall would bowl well together, and I also would prefer to have guys from different eras. Hence Marshall, Steyn, McGrath is perfect for me.

2. Diminished or depreciated value of the secondary skills. And let's be honest, if Bradman, Sobers and co have been skittled out, don't see any tail making much of a comeback.

I want the best bowlers to be able to bowl them out for as cheaply as possible.