In terms of match impact, is Botham better than Tendulkar and McGrath?

[kyear2]

Then why make a big deal about slips as a selection criteria?

I also want to reply to this again as well.

And then to the op in general.

There was a moment in today's test that not only don't I think anyone mentioned, but that anyone noticed. Jadeja gloved a ball in the general direction of first slip and Root stayed back and parried it as a half volley. I can mention at least three guys who I've seen take half chances like that.
It's not going to fit into the metric of chances per innings or volume, but with a bit of luck going the other way, it would have altered the outcome or at least not let it get as close as it did. Yeah, it really does matter and why I often reference posts like this.



Also with regards to this test match, and comments I've seen online and in the forum. India played too many all rounders, or as I'm finally seeing more of the term, bits and pieces players. In my opinion, in test cricket you need specialists, there's one spot for an all rounder and me personally, I prefer one who can make such teams on their speciality alone.

There's been endless talk about sacrificing a bit of bowling to strengthen the tail, but in challenging conditions and tight chases, that so very rarely pays off.

No, I prefer a specialists like McGrath or Tendulkar in those scenarios. Yes Stokes was a beast this test, but it's also the scenario where he's also probably their best bowler, replace him with any elite pacer in that situation and today likely isn't that close.

 

[kyear2]

No you didn't address my main point, which is that all your ranting on slips and no.8s effectively doesn't change the fact that you select your XIs pretty much consistent with everyone else.

Then as the adage goes, you listen (read) to argue and not to understand.

Literally referenced Richards, a point of contention for many, and Wasim isn't selected for his batting, as clearly indicated by the person who is likely to replace him.

I literally have 3 great slip fielders, with two of them being elite, and all 3 in the spots where they excelled. I don't know what else you think is required for any team.

You're trying to prove a point that doesn't exist. I showed you where it's factored in.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 which tail are you more comfortable with, Knott and Imran or Gilly and Marshall?

The one I literally just told you I would select.

Marshall averaged 20 in a system where he was literally given the green light to have a go. And that's not something that's conjecture.

He was all rounder quality, who didn't remotely take it seriously enough, in a team and culture (for better or worse) that valued dominance over average.

If it meant an attack that is as varied and lethal as Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah, Sobers and Warne, then yes, I'm very comfortable with Marshall and Warne at 8 and 9.

 

[DrWolverine]

@kyear2 which tail are you more comfortable with, Knott and Imran or Gilly and Marshall?

This

 

[subshakerz]

The one I literally just told you I would select.

Marshall averaged 20 in a system where he was literally given the green light to have a go. And that's not something that's conjecture.

He was all rounder quality, who didn't remotely take it seriously enough, in a team and culture (for better or worse) that valued dominance over average.

If it meant an attack that is as varied and lethal as Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah, Sobers and Warne, then yes, I'm very comfortable with Marshall and Warne at 8 and 9.

Ok then. I wont engage further on this point.

 

[subshakerz]

I also want to reply to this again as well.

And then to the op in general.

There was a moment in today's test that not only don't I think anyone mentioned, but that anyone noticed. Jadeja gloved a ball in the general direction of first slip and Root stayed back and parried it as a half volley. I can mention at least three guys who I've seen take half chances like that.
It's not going to fit into the metric of chances per innings or volume, but with a bit of luck going the other way, it would have altered the outcome or at least not let it get as close as it did. Yeah, it really does matter and why I often reference posts like this.

View attachment 48644

Also with regards to this test match, and comments I've seen online and in the forum. India played too many all rounders, or as I'm finally seeing more of the term, bits and pieces players. In my opinion, in test cricket you need specialists, there's one spot for an all rounder and me personally, I prefer one who can make such teams on their speciality alone.

There's been endless talk about sacrificing a bit of bowling to strengthen the tail, but in challenging conditions and tight chases, that so very rarely pays off.

No, I prefer a specialists like McGrath or Tendulkar in those scenarios. Yes Stokes was a beast this test, but it's also the scenario where he's also probably their best bowler, replace him with any elite pacer in that situation and today likely isn't that close.

You're being disingenuous.

Literally NOBODY on this site thinks slips don't matter or are some side position.

So who are you arguing against? Like what is the point about your rants if it's on a point everyone agrees with you on? Where is the disagreement?

As for bowlers vs tail, stop trying to pretend to be a purist because we know that if the batting isn't strong enough you yourself said you would boost the tail batting even with lesser bowling. Otherwise why say Knott and Imran?

 

[Coronis]

You're being disingenuous.

Literally NOBODY on this site thinks slips don't matter or are some side position.

So who are you arguing against? Like what is the point about your rants if it's on a point everyone agrees with you on? Where is the disagreement?

As for bowlers vs tail, stop trying to pretend to be a purist because we know that if the batting isn't strong enough you yourself said you would boost the tail batting even with lesser bowling. Otherwise why say Knott and Imran?

I believe the point he’s trying to make is slips should be valued more highly and should be taken into consideration when picking an XI. As opposed to likely conventional wisdom here of picking the XI and worrying about fielding positions as an afterthought. For most people its not really a factor since at least at the very top echelon, most of these great players (moreso batsmen ofc) were high quality fielders too.

 

[subshakerz]

I believe the point he’s trying to make is slips should be valued more highly and should be taken into consideration when picking an XI. As opposed to likely conventional wisdom here of picking the XI and worrying about fielding positions as an afterthought. For most people its not really a factor since at least at the very top echelon, most of these great players (moreso batsmen ofc) were high quality fielders too.

But he himself doesn't do that as I have pointed out. There is not one position he is picking where slips are the decider.

And I have asked him which selections decision in this forum he has disagreed on this basis and he hasn't answered.

 

[kyear2]

Ok then. I wont engage further on this point.

If Bumrah gets 300 wickets, what's your attack?

I think I know the answer, but want to be sure.

 

[peterhrt]

Also with regards to this test match, and comments I've seen online and in the forum. India played too many all rounders, or as I'm finally seeing more of the term, bits and pieces players. In my opinion, in test cricket you need specialists, there's one spot for an all rounder and me personally, I prefer one who can make such teams on their speciality alone.

There's been endless talk about sacrificing a bit of bowling to strengthen the tail, but in challenging conditions and tight chases, that so very rarely pays off.

The Indian selectors are in a difficult position. India could easily have been ahead in this series. Their three leading wicket-takers have a combined batting average of 3.40. All have career batting averages under ten. All-rounder Jadeja averages over a hundred with both bat and ball in the series. The other leading batsmen, apart from the captain, are Pant who has not impressed behind the stumps, and Rahul and Jaiswal, both of whom have dropped easy catches that have proved costly. The one high-class slip catcher Nair hasn't scored many runs. An extra specialist bowler deemed in need of protection at the crease would mean the innings grinding to a halt even sooner.

The likes of Thakur and Washington Sundar have contributed significantly towards Test wins in England and Australia. Back in 1971 "bits and pieces" players Venkat, Solkar and Abid Ali played crucial roles in the historic away series victories in West Indies and England, not least in the field.

 

[subshakerz]

If Bumrah gets 300 wickets, what's your attack?

I think I know the answer, but want to be sure.

Hadlee, Marshall, Bumrah likely

 

[Coronis]

The Indian selectors are in a difficult position. India could easily have been ahead in this series. Their three leading wicket-takers have a combined batting average of 3.40. All have career batting averages under ten. All-rounder Jadeja averages over a hundred with both bat and ball in the series. The other leading batsmen, apart from the captain, are Pant who has not impressed behind the stumps, and Rahul and Jaiswal, both of whom have dropped easy catches that have proved costly. The one high-class slip catcher Nair hasn't scored many runs. An extra specialist bowler deemed in need of protection at the crease would mean the innings grinding to a halt even sooner.

The likes of Thakur and Washington Sundar have contributed significantly towards Test wins in England and Australia. Back in 1971 "bits and pieces" players Venkat, Solkar and Abid Ali played crucial roles in the historic away series victories in West Indies and England, not least in the field.

Obviously they just need to select Kuldeep

 

[Thala_0710]

Obviously they just need to select Kuldeep

Yup get Kuldeep and a proper bat in imo

 

[kyear2]

You're being disingenuous.

Literally NOBODY on this site thinks slips don't matter or are some side position.

So who are you arguing against? Like what is the point about your rants if it's on a point everyone agrees with you on? Where is the disagreement?

As for bowlers vs tail, stop trying to pretend to be a purist because we know that if the batting isn't strong enough you yourself said you would boost the tail batting even with lesser bowling. Otherwise why say Knott and Imran?

Wasn't arguing and certainly not a rant, it was recounting something that happened that haven't heard mentioned.

The second part of it was simply and literally a counter to a post and points that you made just last week about volume. I'm sure you know which one. Again, your points.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasn't arguing and certainly not a rant, it was recounting something that happened that haven't heard mentioned.

No you've raised the slips point repeatedly in selection discussions

 

[kyear2]

I believe the point he’s trying to make is slips should be valued more highly and should be taken into consideration when picking an XI. As opposed to likely conventional wisdom here of picking the XI and worrying about fielding positions as an afterthought. For most people its not really a factor since at least at the very top echelon, most of these great players (moreso batsmen ofc) were high quality fielders too.

Yes it does bear consideration, I did a poll a few years back asking just that, should it be a factor when selecting teams in general.

It's also about not being regarded when speaking of and rating cricketers here in general. Two days ago there was a comp between Trueman and Chappell. If it were Pollock vs Chappell, everyone would talk about the inflated batting average of the former that impresses everyone. There was however, no mention of the fact that Chappell was a top 10 slip of all time.

Back to real selections, I'm hearing quite a few people calling for Nair to be dropped, but he's been their most consistent and best catcher (from what I saw) for the series. I'm not saying he's undroppable because if it, but should be a consideration in his favor.

I'm saying it's a critical part of the game that's not fully appreciated here by some , one who literally thinks you can stick anyone there and coach them up. It's however very much a specialist position, and I also disagree with the notion that it's conventional wisdom to choose a team and just figure it out after.

 

[kyear2]

But he himself doesn't do that as I have pointed out. There is not one position he is picking where slips are the decider.

And I have asked him which selections decision in this forum he has disagreed on this basis and he hasn't answered.

Literally said Barry multiple times.

If it comes down to the other Richards vs Sachin, then there as well.

It's literally like you just choose to see only what you want to.

 

[subshakerz]

Literally said Barry multiple times.

If it comes down to the other Richards vs Sachin, then there as well.

It's literally like you just choose to see only what you want to.

So you are dropping who for Barry based on slips, Hutton or Hobbs?

 

[subshakerz]

I'm saying it's a critical part of the game that's not fully appreciated here by some , one who literally thinks you can stick anyone there and coach them up. It's however very much a specialist position, and I also disagree with the notion that it's conventional wisdom to choose a team and just figure it out after.

Were the majority of the great slip catchers in history selected based on catching?

 

[peterhrt]

Were the majority of the great slip catchers in history selected based on catching?

There are players who probably would never have been selected for England had they not been exceptional catchers. Examples are Ernie Hayes, Jim McConnon, Peter Walker, Phil Sharpe and Graham Roope.