Hammond vs Kallis

[subshakerz]

That's a serious generalization. Both have batted innings where they were needed either to win or hang onto for a draw. Marshall has a famous example in '84 with a broken arm.
In fact the exact opposite was true, when we had a lead or big score MM would often give it a go and get back into the shed.

Just check their top scoring innings and the majority of the circumstances they scored those runs.

 

[kyear2]

Just check their top scoring innings and the majority of the circumstances they scored those runs.

Ok, really should be working, but going to try to articulate this as it is in my head.

We're working with hypotheticals and the though process is that we want to have a stronger no.8 even at the expense of a (slightly or otherwise) superior bowler. And this is because a better batsman down the order can help to extend the innings from time to time, leading to an indeterminate number of runs. This could, again theoretically, either avert a collapse or capitalize on what the batsmen have done in the innings.
So let's optimistically say on average that adds an extra 20 to 40 runs per innings, is that worth potentially not having the best attack on the field? Who knows how much runs that could potentially cause.
And let's go even further, i'm one of possible 3 people in CW that thinks we should factor in slip fielding, but most don't. We're trying to determine how much a hypothetical bowling AR would add in runs, but how much runs does it cost when we drop the other teams Bradman at first slip? One of Bradman's hundreds vs the west indies was because we dropped him in the slips while in single digits, it happens. How much runs, or matches could that cost compared to not having a no. 8 that can bat. I find we selectively decide what skills are valuable or necessary with regards to wins and losses. We look at , oh he averaged more with the bat. As a Pakistani fan during the WWs era, which would have cost or led to more defeats, tail end collapses or dropped catches?
And I say again, yes from time to time we get rear guard resistance that lead to victories or even to teams hanging on to draws. But how many of those are from the ARs or just normal tailenders fighting back? Plus these level of attacks should blow through lower order batsmen with some regularity. But just my opinion.

Sorry for yet another ramble.

 

[Bolo.]

Nobody called them all rounders lol.

This #batdeep **** is getting ridiculous.

Hell Cummins batted us to an Ashes win and he isn’t as good a bat as either of them. You don’t need allrounders batting at 8 or below. You need the best bowlers available.

The ashes is the perfect example of why batting deep matters. 3 of the 4 results were swung by the lower order, and one would have been if the lower order had performed a bit better.

Having an Imran level bat would have been reasonably likely to give either team a 4-0. Playing a complete spud instead of someone who can hold a bat loses the series for either team.

If teams are closely matched, lower order partnerships are going to swing a fair few games.

 

[Prince EWS]

Surprisingly Marshall and Warne both got a mention there at the end

Both under-achieved in Tests with the bat a bit. In Marshall's case I just don't think he was really required to play serious innings very often. He did make seven FC tons, and he averaged high 20s with the bat in non-Test FC cricket. I reckon he has a good case for being the best lower order player we don't tend to think of as a bowling allrounder. Players like Hadlee, Pollock, Davidson, Ashwin etc were definitely better than him but maybe not by as much as it seems when we put them in totally different categories.

Late-career Vaas was definitely a bowling allrounder too which I think most people didn't really actually notice at the time. He averaged 38 with the bat in his last four years of Test cricket.

 

[CricAddict]

Yes, Marshall is in that place between Warne (bowler who can bat) and Akram (bowling all-rounder) in terms of batting. I will put Ashwin and Vaas too in the Marshall category.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Plus these level of attacks should blow through lower order batsmen with some regularity.

What exactly is the argument here? That ATG attacks will always blow through the lower order whether its Marshall and Warne or Imran and Hadlee? There's really no evidence for this imo. Also why would you want to blunt Gilchrist by having to bat him with scrubs you admit would be blown away immediately?

 

[Prince EWS]

What exactly is the argument here? That ATG attacks will always blow through the lower order whether its Marshall and Warne or Imran and Hadlee? There's really no evidence for this imo. Also why would you want to blunt Gilchrist by having to bat him with scrubs you admit would be blown away immediately?

I think there is something to the argument that the higher the level the more you have to specialise, and if we're going up a couple of levels from Test cricket then Imran's batting output might not actually be more than Marshall's by the same margin it was a lower level.

For example, I'd probably rather have Woakes than Steyn in a domestic FC team. They're both going to be guns with the ball and lead the attack to similar effect but Woakes can bat in the top 6 as well. In Tests this becomes extremely silly as the difference between them on their primary skill is exaggerated and the difference between them on their secondary skill is reduced.

I've said on here before that I think Imran was the best Test cricketer of all time (I don't think I quite hold that opinion anymore but he's still a close second) so I'm always gonna pick him anyway and make him captain but I can the internal logic for thinking he's allroundeness might be blunted by a higher level.

 

[Prince EWS]

Imagine if you will that Tests didn't exist, and players just played domestic FC cricket, but we pondered on CW about what a World XI would look like.

You'd totally get silly people (like me probably, lol) saying Woakes should be picked ahead of Cummins because their bowling at domestic level would be producing very similar returns but Woakes is a much better batsman. But that would massively backfire because Cummins is a better bowler than Woakes in ways that are mostly just masked at that level.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think there is something to the argument that the higher the level the more you have to specialise, and if we're going up a couple of levels from Test cricket then Imran's batting output might not actually be more than Marshall's by the same margin it was a lower level.

Wasn't there consensus among kyear and co that these games would be lower scoring because ATG bowlers have the wood over ATG batsmen? In low scoring games I'd argue batting depth becomes even more crucial than in normal games which bigger scores where the tail isn't needed. The gap between Marshall and Imran both in real life and in a hypothetical scenario is being understated because Imran actually did play the role of specialist batsman at times in both formats. He was clearly good enough to hold his place in the team as a middle order batsman in a tough era for batsmen. He wasn't merely a lower order meme hitter.

Also if specialists are that important, why is Gilchrist unanimously picked over Knott? Couldn't you argue Knott's higher level keeping in a hypothetical scenario where the ATG batting lineup might offer fewer chances would be more important than Gilchrist's value addition with the bat?

 

[Prince EWS]

Wasn't there consensus among kyear and co that these games would be lower scoring because ATG bowlers have the wood over ATG batsmen? In low scoring games I'd argue batting depth becomes even more crucial than in normal games which bigger scores where the tail isn't needed.

Yeah I'd agree with you there but I don't actually agree with the assertion that games would be lower scoring at a higher level. Tests tend to be higher scoring than domestic FC cricket (although I think part of that is just the extra day's play and better batting wickets).

 

[Prince EWS]

On Gilchrist, I actually totally do think he'd flop as a batsman at a higher level than regular Tests, but I obviously can't prove it. He said in his autobiography that throughout his entire career he had huge self-doubt and often wondered if everything he'd done had been to some extent just a giant fluke, and I remember @thierry henry saying he actually felt the same way about him when he was watching him. "Regular Test" bully IMO.

I reckon Sanga would end up keeping if we brought our fantasy ATG XIs to life and made them play out a few series tbh, but Sanga as keeper is so speculative and Gilchrist was so suited to batting 7 that I just feel like a massive edgelord if I suggest actually putting Sanga in as keeper in these teams.

 

[subshakerz]

On Gilchrist, I actually totally do think he'd flop as a batsman at a higher level than regular Tests, but I obviously can't prove it. He said in his autobiography that throughout his entire career he had huge self-doubt and often wondered if everything he'd done had been to some extent just a giant fluke, and I remember @thierry henry saying he actually felt the same way about him when he was watching him. "Regular Test" bully IMO.

I reckon Sanga would end up keeping if we brought our fantasy ATG XIs to life and made them play out a few series tbh, but Sanga as keeper is so speculative and Gilchrist was so suited to batting 7 that I just feel like a massive edgelord if I suggest actually putting Sanga in as keeper in these teams.

Gilly's game was built on bullying tired bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasn't there consensus among kyear and co that these games would be lower scoring because ATG bowlers have the wood over ATG batsmen? In low scoring games I'd argue batting depth becomes even more crucial than in normal games which bigger scores where the tail isn't needed. The gap between Marshall and Imran both in real life and in a hypothetical scenario is being understated because Imran actually did play the role of specialist batsman at times in both formats. He was clearly good enough to hold his place in the team as a middle order batsman in a tough era for batsmen. He wasn't merely a lower order meme hitter.

Also if specialists are that important, why is Gilchrist unanimously picked over Knott? Couldn't you argue Knott's higher level keeping in a hypothetical scenario where the ATG batting lineup might offer fewer chances would be more important than Gilchrist's value addition with the bat?

To me there is a massive difference between someone who is a regular lower order bat and a useful bat who can swing a few across the rope.

In a low scoring ATG XI game, Imran making it to 20 to 40 is much more valuable in the final equation.

 

[Prince EWS]

Gilly's game was built on bullying tired bowlers.

Yeah this is largely true, but I feel a bit harsh when I put it like that because he did have a couple of seriously awesome innings when Australia were in trouble.

I do tend to think is mostly a bit of a fluke though as opposed to him being 'clutch'. He could obviously seriously bat but that partnership with Langer against Pak for example was great for his mythology and I think it just happened to be the day a good bat tonned up more than anything really inherent.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah this is largely true, but I feel a bit harsh when I put it like that because he did have a couple of seriously innings when Australia were in trouble.

I do tend to think is mostly a bit of a fluke though as opposed to him being 'clutch'. He could obviously seriously bat but that partnership with Langer against Pak for example was great for his mythology and I think it just happened to be the day a good bat tonned up more than anything really inherent.

He had several advantages to his game that are hard to ignore but at least played enough serious knocks to show he was a class bat.

 

[kyear2]

The ashes is the perfect example of why batting deep matters. 3 of the 4 results were swung by the lower order, and one would have been if the lower order had performed a bit better.

Having an Imran level bat would have been reasonably likely to give either team a 4-0. Playing a complete spud instead of someone who can hold a bat loses the series for either team.

If teams are closely matched, lower order partnerships are going to swing a fair few games.

That is quite a reach. Australia won that match without an all rounder and the tail fighting back. And in the couple games when Australia's tail wagged, especially the 2nd instance, it was the bowling that totally lost direction and discipline and went bouncer crazy.

But to think that Imran would have won two matches on his own with the bat is a bit crazy and making the assumption he would fire every match. Not even Bradman did that

 

[kyear2]

I think there is something to the argument that the higher the level the more you have to specialise, and if we're going up a couple of levels from Test cricket then Imran's batting output might not actually be more than Marshall's by the same margin it was a lower level.

For example, I'd probably rather have Woakes than Steyn in a domestic FC team. They're both going to be guns with the ball and lead the attack to similar effect but Woakes can bat in the top 6 as well. In Tests this becomes extremely silly as the difference between them on their primary skill is exaggerated and the difference between them on their secondary skill is reduced.

I've said on here before that I think Imran was the best Test cricketer of all time (I don't think I quite hold that opinion anymore but he's still a close second) so I'm always gonna pick him anyway and make him captain but I can the internal logic for thinking he's allroundeness might be blunted by a higher level.

Basically all some of us were saying. Diminished returns on secondary skills as the level increases. Very likely the same for the batting all rounder, but still needed as a fifth bowler in these scenarios would be likely needed, if for nothing else to assist with rotation and to keep it tight.

 

[subshakerz]

That is quite a reach. Australia won that match without an all rounder and the tail fighting back. And in the couple games when Australia's tail wagged, especially the 2nd instance, it was the bowling that totally lost direction and discipline and went bouncer crazy.

But to think that Imran would have won two matches on his own with the bat is a bit crazy and making the assumption he would fire every match. Not even Bradman did that

Do you see the concern we would have for having a regular tail in an ATG XI game that we already agree are going to be low-scoring affairs and every run counts?

 

[subshakerz]

Basically all some of us were saying. Diminished returns on secondary skills as the level increases. Very likely the same for the batting all rounder, but still needed as a fifth bowler in these scenarios would be likely needed, if for nothing else to assist with rotation and to keep it tight.

You are comparing a proper lower order bat with a useful tailender.

It's like comparing a second change bowler with Tendulkar or Hooper.

There is a clear level of value difference here.

 

[Prince EWS]

You are comparing a proper lower order bat with a useful tailender.

It's like comparing a second change bowler with Tendulkar or Hooper.

Tendulkar and Hooper is kind of a good example though.

At domestic FC level Hooper was a genuine allrounder and used as a frontline bowler, but Tendulkar was just a good part-timer. At one level higher up they had extremely similar returns and utility.

Chris Woakes is a massively better domestic batsman than Mark Wood but in Test cricket the difference is rarely particularly noticable.