Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

To put a bow on it, and this may be only me..for a regular team, I'm more willing to make a bit of a sacrifice to have a Richie Richardson at 5, over say an Inzamam in my batting lineup, than I would be willing to have an all out 5th bowling all rounder (as I've argued for a while now) like say a Miller over Hammond for a 2nd AT XI. Because if Miller is your 5th option, you've got the bowling covered and you're loosing too much in the batting.

Nobody is replacing Inzi for Richardson. That's mental. And Hammond and Miller are roughly cricketers as good as each other, it depends on the spot you can have either in an ATG XI.

The real question is if you would have Smith or Hammond over Tendulkar based on slips? No.

It's a bogus analogy.

 

[kyear2]

They are everywhere. Take opening batters for example (2 in each team) How many end up operating in the slips vs say bowlers?

Also it's pretty amusing your cut off for slips when it comes to what's "decent", but when it comes to 5th bowler anyone who rolls their arm over counts as a measure of skill.

Yes they're there, but are they good?

Ok, you're 5th has never cost anyone a match, they're purely there to supplement your main 4 and help with the rotation, bowl some dog overs and rest your main guys. They're not your primary options, literally not any of your first four. You need a 5th bowler, you don't need a great one.

Decent slip fielders costs you opportunities, actual wickets and games.

In terms of entry level of skill or even the peak level of skill you're attaining in these positions there's drastic differences.

When we're discussing batting all rounders, after Sobers and Kallis it drops off a cliff. It's guys like Simpson and Worrell. There's no elite or match winning levels here among the 5th bowlers.

Next would be the lower order batsmen, and it goes without saying, if any of these guys were elite, or even very good they wouldn't be in the lower order. They definely need more skill to separate themselves from the genuine tail guys, but they aren't going to be confused for top order guys either.

The only area where its a requirement to have a higher baseline requirement is the cordon. If you're average you're a liability. It's also the only skill of the three where you can achieve genuine greatness on the disciple. Sobers wasn't a great bowler, Imran wasn't a great batsman. Waugh, Simpson, Hammond, Sobers, Richardson, Taylor, Kallis were ATG's at the position. Taylor in the slips was a comp to Hobbs as a batsman, not Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

The only area where its a requirement to have a higher baseline requirement is the cordon. If you're average you're a liability.

You are contradicting yourself. Most slips are by definition average by virtue of being the norm. Otherwise elite slip doesn't make any sense.

Slips are a tertiary skill not directly comparable with bowling and batting.

 

[reyrey]

The only area where its a requirement to have a higher baseline requirement is the cordon. If you're average you're a liability. It's also the only skill of the three where you can achieve genuine greatness on the disciple. Sobers wasn't a great bowler, Imran wasn't a great batsman. Waugh, Simpson, Hammond, Sobers, Richardson, Taylor, Kallis were ATG's at the position. Taylor in the slips was a comp to Hobbs as a batsman, not Imran.

It's also the only skill of the 3 which is a passive role. The slip fielder can't do anything to make the ball come to him. Batting and bowling on the other hand are active roles. By definition they are just more important.

 

[kyear2]

Will say this. And will look at it from two scenarios.

In a must win game, a WTC for example, or a 5th test to win it all. You're 5th bowler isn't getting a heavy workload, and if he is, the match is probably going in the wrong direction, and he isn't turning it around.

Subz himself has said in hypothetical AT contest you don't want Sobers bowling a ton of overs, I've agreed and said that ideally he should be spending as much time at 2nd as possible. You have 4 ATG bowlers.

But in that WTC final or final match in the series, you don't want average in your slip cordon, drops will cost you the match. But a Cummins or de Grandhomme, very much average, are more than viable in those scenarios. de Grandhomme will safely navigate through the few overs be has to and Cummins can offer support as he did vs India.

I will say that if you have good specialist, you can survive without a good 5th bowler, if you don't, he's still not winning you games.

The same holds true for lower order bats, a good one like Cummins is preferable no doubt, but anything above that has never shown any additional benefits.

Without a really good to elite cordon, you're not consistently winning games. It's that simple. Over the past 50 years or so, there's not been a legitimately great team that didn't have one. Think we can go back as far as the Aussie and WI teams of the 60's.

 

[Coronis]

Will say this. And will look at it from two scenarios.

In a must win game, a WTC for example, or a 5th test to win it all. You're 5th bowler isn't getting a heavy workload, and if he is, the match is probably going in the wrong direction, and he isn't turning it around.

Subz himself has said in hypothetical AT contest you don't want Sobers bowling a ton of overs, I've agreed and said that ideally he should be spending as much time at 2nd as possible. You have 4 ATG bowlers.

But in that WTC final or final match in the series, you don't want average in your slip cordon, drops will cost you the match. But a Cummins or de Grandhomme, very much average, are more than viable in those scenarios. de Grandhomme will safely navigate through the few overs be has to and Cummins can offer support as he did vs India.

I will say that if you have good specialist, you can survive without a good 5th bowler, if you don't, he's still not winning you games.

The same holds true for lower order bats, a good one like Cummins is preferable no doubt, but anything above that has never shown any additional benefits.

Without a really good to elite cordon, you're not consistently winning games. It's that simple. Over the past 50 years or so, there's not been a legitimately great team that didn't have one. Think we can go back as far as the Aussie and WI teams of the 60's.

I kinda hope a 5th bowler takes out a key batsman at a key moment in the WTC final now.

 

[reyrey]

Will say this. And will look at it from two scenarios.

In a must win game, a WTC for example, or a 5th test to win it all. You're 5th bowler isn't getting a heavy workload, and if he is, the match is probably going in the wrong direction, and he isn't turning it around.

Subz himself has said in hypothetical AT contest you don't want Sobers bowling a ton of overs, I've agreed and said that ideally he should be spending as much time at 2nd as possible. You have 4 ATG bowlers.

But in that WTC final or final match in the series, you don't want average in your slip cordon, drops will cost you the match. But a Cummins or de Grandhomme, very much average, are more than viable in those scenarios. de Grandhomme will safely navigate through the few overs be has to and Cummins can offer support as he did vs India.

I will say that if you have good specialist, you can survive without a good 5th bowler, if you don't, he's still not winning you games.

The same holds true for lower order bats, a good one like Cummins is preferable no doubt, but anything above that has never shown any additional benefits.

Without a really good to elite cordon, you're not consistently winning games. It's that simple. Over the past 50 years or so, there's not been a legitimately great team that didn't have one. Think we can go back as far as the Aussie and WI teams of the 60's.

Good luck keeping your 4 bowlers fresh and fit for those must win games, without having the option to spread out some of their workload in the games preceding them.

Good luck actually getting those 5th test deciders and WTC finals without having options to spread the bowling workload

 

[subshakerz]

The same holds true for lower order bats, a good one like Cummins is preferable no doubt, but anything above that has never shown any additional benefits.

This is just wrong. How many key Ashes and other games have been decided by lower order bats?

Think of Cummins winning the 1st Ashes 2023 test. Or Warne keeping Aus in the 2005 Ashes. Or Steyn helping SA winning the 2nd test in Aus 2008.

And better bats are obviously more preferable

 

[subshakerz]

Without a really good to elite cordon, you're not consistently winning games. It's that simple. Over the past 50 years or so, there's not been a legitimately great team that didn't have one. Think we can go back as far as the Aussie and WI teams of the 60's.

This is reductive. Slips are products of the entire fielding unit. You should say generally good fielding side is important.

And you can argue that there have been no.1 sides that weren't elite in slips. India recently.

 

[kyear2]

I kinda hope a 5th bowler takes out a key batsman at a key moment in the WTC final now.

Never said they couldn't

Wouldn't mind seeing it either

 

[subshakerz]

Never said they couldn't

You actually did. Maybe pay attention to what you write.

and he isn't turning it around.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why are Simpson, Chappell, Hammond and Hooper being thrown around as names for Cordon and compared with Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Viv Richards and Joe Root for 5th bowler??

 

[subshakerz]

Why are Simpson, Chappell, Hammond and Hooper being thrown around as names for Cordon and compared with Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Viv Richards and Joe Root for 5th bowler??

To make slips seem more important than they are.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Where do we draw the line between batting all-rounder, "fifth bowler" and very occasional bowler? In England teams that I can remember for example, the likes of Marcus Trescothick, Ian Bell, Graham Gooch and Dan Lawrence have all had a bowl at some point, usually in a desperate attempt to break a 200+ partnership, but none of them bowled frequently or regularly enough to make a difference to the main bowlers' workloads. Whereas you'd expect someone like Stokes or Watson to get some overs in in every innings unless the opposition was getting rolled cheaply.

 

[Xix2565]

Where do we draw the line between batting all-rounder, "fifth bowler" and very occasional bowler? In England teams that I can remember for example, the likes of Marcus Trescothick, Ian Bell, Graham Gooch and Dan Lawrence have all had a bowl at some point, usually in a desperate attempt to break a 200+ partnership, but none of them bowled frequently or regularly enough to make a difference to the main bowlers' workloads. Whereas you'd expect someone like Stokes or Watson to get some overs in in every innings unless the opposition was getting rolled cheaply.

I'd go by percentage of overs bowled per innings. Maybe at least 10% could qualify as a regular 5th bowler?

 

[Bolo.]

I'd go by percentage of overs bowled per innings. Maybe at least 10% could qualify as a regular 5th bowler?

A 10% cutoff is high, and is going to leave you with hardly anyone whose primary job was batting.

 

[Xix2565]

A 10% cutoff is high, and is going to leave you with hardly anyone whose primary job was batting.

Well it has to be somewhat high because we don't want people who generally were not considered reliable bowling options. Those can be filtered down to 6th/7th/etc options. At least from there you can filter out for batting/bowling/part-timers.

 

[Bolo.]

Well it has to be somewhat high because we don't want people who generally were not considered reliable bowling options. Those can be filtered down to 6th/7th/etc options. At least from there you can filter out for batting/bowling/part-timers.

I agree that we don't really want to be comparing part time filth. At >10% of bowling though, I reckon you are only comparing to the elite tail enders, and none of the slips.

 

[kyear2]

Good luck keeping your 4 bowlers fresh and fit for those must win games, without having the option to spread out some of their workload in the games preceding them.

Good luck actually getting those 5th test deciders and WTC finals without having options to spread the bowling workload

Ok. I need to clarify and tone down the hyperbole for which I'm equally responsible to elevating on the topic.

I've said continuously and consistently that all are important. Everything you've said there, I've said previously, including in this thread.

I believe that their role is as much procedural as it results driven, if not more so. Meaning that their primary role is to spell the primary bowlers, and fill in for some much needed spells during the dog overs prior to the new ball. The wickets are a bonus. Do that while keeping it tight and not releasing pressure and you're golden.

The presence of a 5th bowler is very important for all the things you've mentioned. Yes, keeping the bowlers rested, even breaking the odd partnership. The level of performance, not so much, and that's all I meant.

So while they're an integral cog in the team, and vital to the overall functioning of same... Of the three, I believe that their role is the least actively critical to the success of said team. It also requires the lowest baseline of skill to function.

To summarize, if I had a team and had to skimp out on the quotient or quality of one of the secondary skills, it's that one. That's the one you'll be willing to make the sacrifice of quality for. You don't want consistent lower order collapses, and you can't afford it in the cordon.

 

[Bolo.]

Ok. I need to clarify and tone down the hyperbole for which I'm equally responsible to elevating on the topic.

I've said continuously and consistently that all are important. Everything you've said there, I've said previously, including in this thread.

I believe that their role is as much procedural as it results driven, if not more so. Meaning that their primary role is to spell the primary bowlers, and fill in for some much needed spells during the dog overs prior to the new ball. The wickets are a bonus. Do that while keeping it tight and not releasing pressure and you're golden.

The presence of a 5th bowler is very important for all the things you've mentioned. Yes, keeping the bowlers rested, even breaking the odd partnership. The level of performance, not so much, and that's all I meant.

So while they're an integral cog in the team, and vital to the overall functioning of same... Of the three, I believe that their role is the least actively critical to the success of said team. It also requires the lowest baseline of skill to function.

To summarize, if I had a team and had to skimp out on the quotient or quality of one of the secondary skills, it's that one. That's the one you'll be willing to make the sacrifice of quality for. You don't want consistent lower order collapses, and you can't afford it in the cordon.

It sounds like you trying to compare the secondary skills of 1 player to around 4? OFC the 5th bowler is going to lose that one. How do you feel about 1 5th bowler vs 1 slip vs 1 tail end bat?