How important are runs from number 8?

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

I'm not sure to take advantage of what tbh. Ensuring a draw and not taking 20 wickets?

Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?

I would think so.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?

This is where we get caught up in useless stats due to running up scores.

 

[Stefan9]

Depends on how strong the top 7. Runs from 8 should be a secondary concern but you don't want a bunny either.

 

[Coronis]

Which would you rather?

Knott+
Steyn
Ambrose
McGrath

Gilchrist+
Imran
Wasim
Lindwall

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's all relative to team balance and the bowling you've got. As an extreme example, I
if you're 4 best bowlers are all no. 11s but they are your best bowlers by a distance then your number 8 being able to score runs is irrelevant in comparison. Significantly weaking bowling for someone that might average an extra 10 runs at 8 would be bad selection

 

[the big bambino]

Hoggy at 8 was pretty funny though. 9, 10 and 11 were Dymock, Hurst and Higgs. In two innings they collectively scored 8 runs with Dymock making 6 of them in one innings but not one of them got a pair. They got all 20 wickets and gave Australia our only win that series.

 

[kyear2]

Which would you rather?

Knott+
Steyn
Ambrose
McGrath

Gilchrist+
Imran
Wasim
Lindwall

The first one.

Easily.

 

[Randomfan]

Which would you rather?

Knott+
Steyn
Ambrose
McGrath

Gilchrist+
Imran
Wasim
Lindwall

First set.

It has way more chance to pick 20 wickets in all kind of conditions and against all kinds of oppositions.

 

[kyear2]

So without player overlap, I've tried to figure out what were the arguably the top 10 teams of all time.

Trying to rank them, but also not claiming the list is perfect or the lineups are the absolute best, but tried to use the best lineups that actually took the field.

2002 Australia
Hayden | Langer | Ponting | Waugh | Martyn | Waugh | Gilchrist | Warne | Lee | Gillespie | McGrath

1984 West Indies
Greenidge | Haynes | Richardson | Richards | Gomes | Lloyd | Dujon | Marshall | Holding | Garner | Walsh

1948 Australia
Barnes | Morris | Bradman | Hassett | Miller | Harvey | Loxton | Lindwall | Tallon | Ring | Johnston

1953 England
Hutton | Edrich | May | Compton | Graveney | Bailey | Evans | Laker | Lock | Trueman | Bedser

08 South Africa
Smith | McKenzie | Amla | Kallis | de Villiers | Prince | Boucher | Morkel | Harris | Steyn | Ntini

28 England
Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hammond | Jardine | Hendren | Chapman | Larwood | Geary | Tate | Duckworth | White

63 West Indies
Hunte | Carew | Kanhai | Sobers | Butcher | Solomon | Worrell | Murray | Hall | Griffith | Gibbs

70 South Africa
Richards | Goddard | Bacher | Pollock | Barlow | Irvine | Lance | Lindsay | Procter | Pollock | Traicos

75 Australia
McCosker | Turner | Chappell| Chappell | Redpath | Marsh | Gilmour | Walker | Lillee | Thompson | Mallett

18 India
Dharwan | Rahul | Pujara | Kohli | Rahane | Pant | Jadeja | Ashwin | Sharma | Shami | Bumrah

Outside of that 1970 SA team, none of them had a high volume no. 8, with the 63 WI and 18 Indian squads also in the discussion.

All of those teams have had various contributions from the no. 8, some even in critical situations. But it's never been a primary determinant and clearly behind some other secondary factors.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

So without player overlap, I've tried to figure out what were the arguably the top 10 teams of all time.

Trying to rank them, but also not claiming the list is perfect or the lineups are the absolute best, but tried to use the best lineups that actually took the field.

2002 Australia
Hayden | Langer | Ponting | Waugh | Martyn | Waugh | Gilchrist | Warne | Lee | Gillespie | McGrath

1984 West Indies
Greenidge | Haynes | Richardson | Richards | Rowe | Lloyd | Dujon | Marshall | Holding | Garner | Walsh

1948 Australia
Barnes | Morris | Bradman | Hassett | Miller | Harvey | Loxton | Lindwall | Tallon | Ring | Johnston

1953 England
Hutton | Edrich | May | Compton | Graveney | Bailey | Evans | Laker | Lock | Trueman | Bedser

08 South Africa
Smith | McKenzie | Amla | Kallis | de Villiers | Prince | Boucher | Morkel | Harris | Steyn | Ntini

28 England
Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hammond | Jardine | Hendren | Chapman | Larwood | Geary | Tate | Duckworth | White

63 West Indies
Hunte | Carew | Kanhai | Sobers | Butcher | Solomon | Worrell | Murray | Hall | Griffith | Gibbs

70 South Africa
Richards | Goddard | Bacher | Pollock | Barlow | Irvine | Lance | Lindsay | Procter | Pollock | Traicos

75 Australia
McCosker | Turner | Chappell| Chappell | Redpath | Marsh | Gilmour | Walker | Lillee | Thompson | Mallett

18 India
Dharwan | Rahul | Pujara | Kohli | Rahane | Pant | Jadeja | Ashwin | Sharma | Shami | Bumrah

Outside of that 1970 SA team, none of them had a high volume no. 8, with the 63 WI and 18 Indian squads also in the discussion.

All of those teams have had various contributions from the no. 8, some even in critical situations. But it's never been a primary determinant and clearly behind some other secondary factors.

In that Australian team, you don’t worry about having a ‘proper’ all-rounder at 8 when 9 and 10 are so capable! History is kind of repeating itself now, Starc averages a tick over 20, coming in after Cummins, who averages about 17, although Lyon, the fraud that he is, is yet to hit a Test double ton!

 

[kyear2]

In that Australian team, you don’t worry about having a ‘proper’ all-rounder at 8 when 9 and 10 are so capable! History is kind of repeating itself now, Starc averages a tick over 20, coming in after Cummins, who averages about 17, although Lyon, the fraud that he is, is yet to hit a Test double ton!

Yes, they and SA are the outliers from the perspective of the ones with actual depth.

But similar to how Langer and especially Haydos are perceived, don't think they're averaging that high in any other era.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is not an in a vacuum type of question.

If Vernon Philander is the one getting you runs at number 8, you should pick him. If you have to pick Ashley Giles to get those runs, you probably shouldn't.

Also, kyear, your list is a masterclass in selective bias.

Looking at SA alone you're missing their ATG best team circa 2015, so don't know what else bad faith cherrypicking you've been doing in the rest of the list.

 

[kyear2]

This is not an in a vacuum type of question.

If Vernon Philander is the one getting you runs at number 8, you should pick him. If you have to pick Ashley Giles to get those runs, you probably shouldn't.

Also, kyear, your list is a masterclass in selective bias.

Looking at SA alone you're missing their ATG best team circa 2015, so don't know what else bad faith cherrypicking you've been doing in the rest of the list.

The first part was obvious, as has been noted by everyone in the thread this far.

The second part is the kind of shite you normally post and that Coronis seem intent on liking.

1. The teams and lists that I've used is from a post and thread from last year, discussing just that, the best post war teams ever. I used that list as to not be influenced by this thread in my selections.

2. The 2015 squad was roundly and comprehensively beaten by India and England. And I mean comprehensively.

3. The 2008 SA team because it was the one that took over the mantle from the ATG Australian squad, started that period of success and had both Kallis and Smith.

4. Just because it doesn't follow or suit your agenda doesn't mean it was cherry picked, if it were the '70 South Africa squad wouldn't be there.

The rest of the teams were pretty much straight forward, and took inspiration from the same thread and historical writings a d results.

The difficult one was England 53 or 54 but there seems to be a preference for the former.

But instead of asking, or reading where I noted that I was open to suggestions and don't claim the lists to be perfect l, you decided to do what you do and puke over the keyboard.

So with absolutely no intent to conjure up any unwarranted or undue respect to you and you bs, kindly **** off.

 

[shortpitched713]

2. The 2015 squad was roundly and comprehensively beaten by India and England. And I mean comprehensively.

2012-14 then, when they were number 1 ranked. Sorry I forgot the exact year, but the point stands. That team was the only SA team (other than the current one) to hold undisputed number 1 status, and you conveniently ignore it.