Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

Kyear2 has recently softened his stance on the value of the different skills after some of the recent Test matches. It was in a different thread which could easily have been missed. Maybe that's why he feels attacked with those old posts/views being mentioned again.

He does a bad job explaining himself.

 

[subshakerz]

You???

Not really.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear2 has recently softened his stance on the value of the different skills after some of the recent Test matches. It was in a different thread which could easily have been missed. Maybe that's why he feels attacked with those old posts/views being mentioned again.

Anyway the Kimber post where he thought lower order batting was the least important. He's probably right, but it's only the least important if you actually have a reliable top/middle order. Ideally you'd have that, but the less reliable they are the more important good lower order batting becomes.

5th (and 6th) bowler and the slip cordon are important even if the bowling is good.

Yeah, firstly I think a complete team should have some presence in all aspects of the game.

My thing with the Kimber quote is also,.if the bowling isn't top tier, the batting contributions do mean **** all. As I've said multiple times, balance.

The last paragraph though is where I intimately believe as well. Think Kimber said it as well, there's always going to be scenarios where lower order batting is needed, times where you wish you had an Imran or Pollock at 8 when things go wrong.

But regardless of scenario a team will always need to have a good slip cordon if they're contending for victories, and the 5th bowling spot is viable to the functionality of the attack.

Where it becomes tricky is that I don't need a game breaker from my 5th bowler, I need someone who can come on 2nd change if conditions aren't yet right for the spinner and most importantly, economically navigate the dog overs and break the odd partnership. Keep my guys fresh and don't be a liability. Also don't need him bowling more than he has to either.

So in terms of needs
Cordon
5 + bowlers
Lower order batting

But when it calls to the skill / proficiency levels
Cordon
Lower order
Supplementary bowling

None are useless, and as you've said, the rank of the latter two depends on the strengths of the team. I want consistency / reliability from my 5th, solid from the tail, but honestly excellence from the cordon.

Now for an AT XI, with that level of batting lineup, it really negates the need to stack the lower order, and the fact that Marshall and Warne are already there, it's that much less of a requirement again. There's depth there. And then there's the obvious, in the case of a collapse or route, do we think Hadlee is standing up to what ever decimated Bradman, Hutton, Sachin and Sobers?

Over the course of a series, Sobers will always be needed to contribute with the ball, though hopefully wayyy less than he did during his career.

Now with the bowlers selected and the quality of any supposed opposition, a brilliant slip cordon is a necessity. You not only can't afford drops, you want those half chances taken as well.

As you intimated, the better the batters, the less reliance on the tail, and the better the attack, the less reliance on the 5th, though it still wears on the bowlers, but the better the attack, it still requires just as much, if not more of the catchers.

 

[kyear2]

Now, a better phrasing and framing of the conversation (though captured in the poll) could have been lower order batting, vs the cordon vs the supplementary bowling, with emphasis (as required) on the most critical aspect of each, no. 8 vs, 2nd slip, vs the 5th option. But ultimately the groups...

Results would have been mostly the same, but eliminated some of the questions up front. But it was very much in the poll.

Cordon vs tail vs back up bowlers is kinda straight forward.

Yes you don't want a capitulation, and want the tail to wag, someone to hang around with the top order as required, but the further down you go the value drops considerably, and the less batting is factored into selection (if at all).
The 5th bowler is key, after that it's just about who can be called upon in a pinch.
The codon though is important 1st through 3rd (through 3rd is in place the least), if not gully as well.

Edit...
I had an entire summary written, but literally talked myself out of it as I was writing.

Twice....

Every metric gives me a different result.

The position I'm least likely to have to prioritize or select in any XI is the no. 8 (simply because a all rounder at 6 is normally a must).

All rounders also weren't a feature of many of the greatest modern teams, though Australia did have decent batting depth, and Marshall had some match winning knocks. None had high use 5th bowlers, Viv wasn't great, though Harper seemed to bring a boost when he was in the team, Waugh was past his best and Symonds was a sporadic presence at the end of the dynasty. Yes Jacques was there for SA, but he too was well past his bowling best in 2008.
Do great teams need either all rounder? I would suggest vs top end opposition or close contests, yes. Especially that 5th bowler when you're not blowing through the opposition.

On the individual perspective, each have their detractors.

Some have questioned the volume of chances to the 2nd to justify consideration, while most no. 8's in critical situations or challenging conditions are not nearly reliable, and finally every over your 5th option continues to bowl, it's an over your front liner isn't. There is an inherent drop off in quality. (AT scenario, you don't want Sobers bowling as many overs as the front line attack)

Id @subshakerz and I had to sit and create a world XI to take on the Europans, we would generally settle on 9 and would compromise to each get our guy in.
We've argued about this and while I believe that vs a comparative attack his batting contributions would be minimal (especially on result pitches), he believes that over the course of a series, in at least one match he would have a match saving innings.
While I know that with that bowling attack, Sobers would get multiple opportunities and half chances to complete chances. If every run is vital, every wicket is more so. While neither of us wants to have Sobers bowling too many overs, it's accepted that it's essential to maintaining the bowlers health through the series.

So I've asked some if the longest tenured and most respected posters on the forum and they unanimously went cordon, lower order and supplementary bowling.

Mr. Kimber on the other hand went cordon, supplementary bowling, then lower order batting.

Grok (for what it's worth) went cordon, lower order batting, then supplementary bowling, (for average teams, great teams and AT XI's)

So I think I have it, finally.

While the 5th bowler is the only position of the three that's directly mandated into team selection, and passively is crucial to the functional rotation and viability of an attack, it is a passive role, and they don't feature actively in many results. Grok calls their role moderate, while the other two are high (importance).

For me personally, even though in a couple years my AT pace attack may be Marshall, McGrath and Bumrah, for now Wasim, Marshall and Warne still constitutes a good 8, 9 and 10, who while wouldn't lead a counter attack, are capable of sticking around with a top order bat. And while the top order and a strong no. 7 makes it less of a priority, it's always preferable not to have a full tail of complete rabbits.

From any perspective, it's imperative to take your chances, and it's been a feature of the game since fast bowlers started to rule the roost. So be it the Australian squad from the early to mid 70's and all the genuinely great squads since, they all had AT cordons... The WI just lost a match because they forgot how to catch, one of the biggest factors in the victories of the BGT was the catches dropped by the Australians in the cordon, same for the 1st test of the current series.

In an AT XI, the one that would be most critical is likely the one standing at 2nd to the greatest pace attack ever assembled and at 1st to the leg spinning Warne.

Even today I trust and value a Markham / Brook at 2nd / 1st more than I do a batting Woakes / Jansen / Cummins or even any of the plethora of 5th bowling options that exists around the world today.

 

[Coronis]

Now, a better phrasing and framing of the conversation (though captured in the poll) could have been lower order batting, vs the cordon vs the supplementary bowling, with emphasis (as required) on the most critical aspect of each, no. 8 vs, 2nd slip, vs the 5th option. But ultimately the groups...

Results would have been mostly the same, but eliminated some of the questions up front. But it was very much in the poll.

Cordon vs tail vs back up bowlers is kinda straight forward.

Yes you don't want a capitulation, and want the tail to wag, someone to hang around with the top order as required, but the further down you go the value drops considerably, and the less batting is factored into selection (if at all).
The 5th bowler is key, after that it's just about who can be called upon in a pinch.
The codon though is important 1st through 3rd (through 3rd is in place the least), if not gully as well.

Edit...
I had an entire summary written, but literally talked myself out of it as I was writing.

Twice....

Every metric gives me a different result.

The position I'm least likely to have to prioritize or select in any XI is the no. 8 (simply because a all rounder at 6 is normally a must).

All rounders also weren't a feature of many of the greatest modern teams, though Australia did have decent batting depth, and Marshall had some match winning knocks. None had high use 5th bowlers, Viv wasn't great, though Harper seemed to bring a boost when he was in the team, Waugh was past his best and Symonds was a sporadic presence at the end of the dynasty. Yes Jacques was there for SA, but he too was well past his bowling best in 2008.
Do great teams need either all rounder? I would suggest vs top end opposition or close contests, yes. Especially that 5th bowler when you're not blowing through the opposition.

On the individual perspective, each have their detractors.

Some have questioned the volume of chances to the 2nd to justify consideration, while most no. 8's in critical situations or challenging conditions are not nearly reliable, and finally every over your 5th option continues to bowl, it's an over your front liner isn't. There is an inherent drop off in quality. (AT scenario, you don't want Sobers bowling as many overs as the front line attack)

Id @subshakerz and I had to sit and create a world XI to take on the Europans, we would generally settle on 9 and would compromise to each get our guy in.
We've argued about this and while I believe that vs a comparative attack his batting contributions would be minimal (especially on result pitches), he believes that over the course of a series, in at least one match he would have a match saving innings.
While I know that with that bowling attack, Sobers would get multiple opportunities and half chances to complete chances. If every run is vital, every wicket is more so. While neither of us wants to have Sobers bowling too many overs, it's accepted that it's essential to maintaining the bowlers health through the series.

So I've asked some if the longest tenured and most respected posters on the forum and they unanimously went cordon, lower order and supplementary bowling.

Mr. Kimber on the other hand went cordon, supplementary bowling, then lower order batting.

Grok (for what it's worth) went cordon, lower order batting, then supplementary bowling, (for average teams, great teams and AT XI's)

So I think I have it, finally.

While the 5th bowler is the only position of the three that's directly mandated into team selection, and passively is crucial to the functional rotation and viability of an attack, it is a passive role, and they don't feature actively in many results. Grok calls their role moderate, while the other two are high (importance).

For me personally, even though in a couple years my AT pace attack may be Marshall, McGrath and Bumrah, for now Wasim, Marshall and Warne still constitutes a good 8, 9 and 10, who while wouldn't lead a counter attack, are capable of sticking around with a top order bat. And while the top order and a strong no. 7 makes it less of a priority, it's always preferable not to have a full tail of complete rabbits.

From any perspective, it's imperative to take your chances, and it's been a feature of the game since fast bowlers started to rule the roost. So be it the Australian squad from the early to mid 70's and all the genuinely great squads since, they all had AT cordons... The WI just lost a match because they forgot how to catch, one of the biggest factors in the victories of the BGT was the catches dropped by the Australians in the cordon, same for the 1st test of the current series.

In an AT XI, the one that would be most critical is likely the one standing at 2nd to the greatest pace attack ever assembled and at 1st to the leg spinning Warne.

Even today I trust and value a Markham / Brook at 2nd / 1st more than I do a batting Woakes / Jansen / Cummins or even any of the plethora of 5th bowling options that exists around the world today.

 

[Prince EWS]

View attachment 48404

Cordon, lower order batting, supplementary bowling prioritised; 2nd slip critical, No. 8 less vital, 5th bowler passively supports attack.

 

[Coronis]

Cordon, lower order batting, supplementary bowling prioritised; 2nd slip critical, No. 8 less vital, 5th bowler passively supports attack.

So basically an extended repost.