Several points:
- Please don't bring Mark Waugh in as a specialist slip, he was all over actually.
- Again, please compare elite slips like Taylor with the normal decent slip. For example, Taylor took 157 catches in 104 catches, Hammond 110 in 85 games, Viv 122 in 121 games. Yet decent good slips like Lara took 164 catches in 130 odd games, Younis Khan 139 in 118 games. Not a big difference at all in real terms.
- Compare that to elite versus decent good no.8s. Vettori and Pollock who have scored a lot more runs in far few tests than Warne, as well as scored tons, etc. The difference is far more. It isn't even close.
First off, Lindwall was an excellent no.8/9 for the Invincibles.
I have shown you many examples of a decent good 2000s Aussie tail consistently bailing out Australia which you earlier denied. So the tail batting quality does matter it is just that Australia didn't have an elite no.8 available.
And to be clear: STOP COMPARING A SINGLE NO.8 TO AN ENTIRE SLIP CORDON.
First off, Lara and Younis, were better than decent. They don't same way with batsmen you don't go from ATG to decent. Lara was special, Younis's catching a differentiator.
And yes there is a difference, it's the ones missed and the ability to turn, again, half chances into wickets. These things can't be captured by stats, but they're what turns games. This somehow is entirely lost on you.
The crazy thing about the Pollock reference is that you've repeatedly said that his runs lacked impact. and even though Warne, Marshall, Morkel, were no where near as good batsmen as Pollock or Vettori, it didn't impact the success of their teams as much. And not all runs are equal. When you boost your numbers with gratuitous runs, running up scores, it doesn't nearly hit the same.
Ok we're going back to '48 Cool, Lindwall was very much in the same grouping as a batsman as Marshall and Warne. RPI's are practically identical, as was impact. Is that what you're calling all rounders now?
And yes, Australia had a decent tail, the West Indies had reliably useable one in a crisis, but otherwise ordinary, South Africa's wasn't great... you don't need an elite tail to be successful, that's the point. And it's not that they didn't have an elite no. 8 available, it's not nearly a non negotiable for great teams. You select who gets you 20 wickets.
And no, I'm not. I'm comparing the entire cordon to the tail, so equal numbers there. And the entire cordon is easily more important than the tail. It always have been.
I'm comparing a no. 8 to your 2nd slip, who goes to first for your spinner. Remember what Mahela, Dravid, Taylor meant for Murali, Kumble and Warne?
So to be very clear. I don't say that the tail isn't important and there have been valuable partnerships over the decades.
It however comes down to this.
1. You're referencing a 30 rpi level no 8. There's been at best a handful of those. I can easily reference around 15 ATG slip fielders. They're not all these special number 8's.
2. The bowling all rounder types have never featured in the success for great teams. I'm not making this up, that's pretty much how it's been. It's entirely possible that with more stable batting lineups, there's less consistent need for rear guard actions or even less tolerances for the gratuitous piling up of runs.
3. I have multiple examples of dropped catches that were almost the predictive factor in test matches and series and literally swung the tide of both. It's never been about volume, but quality.
4. An average tail is a plus factor and helps to add to totals at the tail end of innings. An average cordon on the other hand costs wickets, matches and series.
And as I've said to you multiple times, if every runs counts, then surely every wicket counts far more.
