Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[reyrey]

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?

Another possible way to compare the value of the skills might be something like this

-The slip cordon takes 90% of chances, and only drops one chance per Test.

- 5th bowler (pace) has an ER of 3, averages 30 and over his career takes on average 2 wickets per match. 6th bowler (spin) ER 3 averages 45 and 1 wicket per 2 Tests (this would be similar to having Stokes and Root as bowlers)

- Tailend batting: number 8 averages 25, number 9 averages 20, 10 averages 15, 11 averages 10 (this tail is similar to Bresnan, Swann, Broad, Anderson in the early 2010s)

 

[kyear2]

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??

Multiple reasons.

It was in the context of the discussion where moderate relief bowlers more than suitably demonstrated the ability to fill the role.

Basically, it didn't take a significant amount of comparative skill to be efficient.

Also, who are the best 5th bowling options. Kallis, Greig, Mustaq, Simpson, Barlow, Worrell Hammond?

By the very nature of the position, it's not one that projects greatness.

As I said earlier, it's the one of the three that has the lowest skill entry level, as well as possibly the lowest ceiling as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Multiple reasons.

It was in the context of the discussion where moderate relief bowlers more than suitably demonstrated the ability to fill the role.

Basically, it didn't take a significant amount of comparative skill to be efficient.

Also, who are the best 5th bowling options. Kallis, Greig, Mustaq, Simpson, Barlow, Worrell Hammond?

By the very nature of the position, it's not one that projects greatness.

As I said earlier, it's the one of the three that has the lowest skill entry level, as well as possibly the lowest ceiling as well.

As I said, comparing the Greatest Ever Slippers to 5th bowlers who more often than not were 7th or 8th bowlers, is plain Wrong. Want to compare Hammond's slipping, do with the best 5th option. Now depends on what you consider a 5th bowler, so depending on definition it will be someone like Keith Miller and Ian Botham. Won't go that far, but I think it makes reasonable sense to compare Kallis' secondary to tertiary.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Forgot Watson in the previous list, yeah he definitely qualifies as among the better ones. Injury free Stokes is definitely a front line bowler though.

The 5th bowler is exactly that, more than just part timer and someone who regularly performed in that role in tests.

The 5th bowler is also someone who wouldn't get selected for that particular skill alone.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Who actually does qualify under that cutoff?

 

[kyear2]

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.

The high end skill level of Mark Waugh or Richie Richardson is higher than than of any lower order bat, or any 5th bowler.

Impact in series won tends to be higher for the slip catchers as well.

But more importantly when one reads through match reports or summaries as I often do, and predominantly for India and Pakistan... One would be surprised by the amount of drop catches in the cordon that are noted that either directly lead to loses or missed opportunities to win matches. It's not a one off.

Teams like Australia when a problem developed with dropped chances off their bowlers, drafted in Simpson. It was treated as a priority.

Oh, and elite tailenders is very much an oxymoron.

 

[peterhrt]

Teams like Australia when a problem developed with dropped chances off their bowlers, drafted in Simpson. It was treated as a priority.

Same with England. Phil Sharpe and Graham Roope were picked primarily for their slip catching.

 

[Bolo.]

The high end skill level of Mark Waugh or Richie Richardson is higher than than of any lower order bat, or any 5th bowler.

Impact in series won tends to be higher for the slip catchers as well.

But more importantly when one reads through match reports or summaries as I often do, and predominantly for India and Pakistan... One would be surprised by the amount of drop catches in the cordon that are noted that either directly lead to loses or missed opportunities to win matches. It's not a one off.

Teams like Australia when a problem developed with dropped chances off their bowlers, drafted in Simpson. It was treated as a priority.

Oh, and elite tailenders is very much an oxymoron.

Sure they are better slips than anyone but an ATG specialist is in primary at batting or bowling. We aren't trying to compare how good they are at their job though, just how much value they bring.

Ritchie took a catch a match. We some recent data that said that the teams that were performing the worst were taking about 70% of catches. To simplify, that's basically an extra dropped catch every 3 games. @ an average of 30 runs a wicket, that's around 10 runs a game. This is ATG compared to bad. Kapil adds more than 30 runs more than Murali without even considering additional parnership runs.

Sure, drops can swing games. Just not as often as tail end runs. In the last few years, I reckon something like half of close games have come down to tail end runs. Far fewer for drops.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Would you allow one slip to be non elite to allow a better 5th bowler?

 

[kyear2]

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?

I started off the thread with saying lower order batting, that can extend down to 9 for many teams and I never restricted it to no. 8, it's just diminishing returns much far down.

But we can do either.

We can compare the greatest cordons (1st through 3rd) vs the greatest tails (8 through 11) and take note of which had the greatest impact on their teams. We could include 5th option, plus support bowlers, but not sure if that comparison would be comparative.

We can also compare the best no 8's vs the best slip's, and again see which had the greatest impact on their teams and wins.

Even when we look at potentially the best or deepest tail, Australia 2002, I would suggest and argue that their slip cordons was still more important to team success. Think they would as well.

Even when we look at what's clearly the three best teams of my life time, the cordons for all 3 were not only superb, but the hallmarks and critical components of their success.

Warne / Waugh / Ponting

Lloyd / Richards /.Richardson

Smith / Kallis / deVilliers

The mid 70's Australian squad and the preceding SA team would be next in line and follows the same premise.


With regards to individuals, considering how critical taking 20 wickets is to actually winning tests, and how difficult they can be to come by, your second slip (who also transitions to 1st to the spinners) is at least as important if not more so than your no. 8.

I was watching some long form highlights of the west Indies in Australia in '84 and a partnership was building between Wood and another batsman where Richie made something out of what was at best a half chance. They also made reference to one that Lloyd had also taken the day prior. The average guys not only aren't taking that, there's going to be drops in-between.

In contrast I was reading some match reports from Pakistan, in I want to say Australia? where a key partnership saved the game for the opposition after they were dropped. And that shows up quite a bit for a couple teams over the past 50 years. It costs matches.

Lower order batsmen, and there have been about 7 of them who can be categorized as no. 7 / 8 batsmen, who can be seen as a tier above the rest, Dev, Procter, Vertori, Cairns, Imran, Pollock and Hadlee, are definitely important. So yes they can be impactful, but also incredibly inconsistent, hence the rpi in the mid to late 20's. And even beyond that, the wpm is also disproportionately low compared to the rpi, and that's because unless they're in abysmally bad teams that lose a lot, they generally don't get to bat twice very often. Hence again lowering their overall production and impact.

Setting a standard for 5th bowlers is tricky. Bowlers who predominantly bowled 3rd change or didn't match the production of higher slots, while maintaining a wpm of at least 1.5 leaves quite the short list. Greig has the highest wpm of exactly two, with 6 fifers and 2 ten wicket hauls, but none of the others comes close to that kind of production and of the four (the aforementioned plus de Grandhomme and McMillan) only Kallis and Greig had a s/r below 70. And there lies the rub, while doubtlessly vital and essential... For lower order batsmen even if not consistent, runs are still runs, while the wickets of the 5th bowlers comes generally at a greater cost and considerably slower. Of course that comes with the caveat that they never get the new ball and generally bowl at entrenched batsmen, but it's still a consideration. When they bowl, it's a drop off from the quality and production of your primary attack. de Grandhomme as was referenced earlier in the thread had a s/r of over 80, with one five wicket haul and no ten's.

So to answer the question, your elite slip fielder has the potential to consistently and efficiently impact and change more games than either. The tail lacks consistency and the 5th bowler lacks the efficiency.

Given the choice of Simpson, Taylor, Waugh, Sobers or Richardson in my cordon or Kallis, Greig, de Grandhomme, or McMillan bowling 3rd change in my lineup, or Imran, Vertori, Pollock, Cairns or Hadlee coming in at 7 or 8, I'll take the ones who will capitalize on all chances presented, if not creating half ones on their own.

We can all see this differently, but I'll take the one that has not only featured in and impacted victories more, but makes the bowlers, who again dictates victories, better.

A team can make by without a good 5th bowling option, they can even manage without higher end lower order batters, in the modern era however, teams haven't proven to be able to reach the standard of greatness (home and away) without the elite men in the cordon.

 

[subshakerz]

I started off the thread with saying lower order batting, that can extend down to 9 for many teams and I never restricted it to no. 8, it's just diminishing returns much far down.

But we can do either.

We can compare the greatest cordons (1st through 3rd) vs the greatest tails (8 through 11) and take note of which had the greatest impact on their teams. We could include 5th option, plus support bowlers, but not sure if that comparison would be comparative.

Given the choice of Simpson, Taylor, Waugh, Sobers or Richardson in my cordon or Kallis, Greig, de Grandhomme, or McMillan bowling 3rd change in my lineup, or Imran, Vertori, Pollock, Cairns or Hadlee coming in at 7 or 8, I'll take the ones who will capitalize on all chances presented, if not creating half ones on their own.

You started your post by saying we can compare multiple positions and then compared a single slip fielder to a no.8. Maybe just stick to one criteria.

Anyways, there is no comparison. A no.7/8 averaging 30 or so is definitely more useful than a single slip fielder. The number of extra catches he will take won't exceed the extra runs you get per innings.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, don't get why slip fielding is being seen as this super skill all of a sudden. Being able to bowl or bat above your position is much better.

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 has never addressed the number of occasions a great team like Aus 2000 were bailed out by contributions from Warne/Lee/Gillespie.

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 has never addressed the number of occasions a great team like Aus 2000 were bailed out by contributions from Warne/Lee/Gillespie.

Just did a brief look and I can comfortably get at least a dozen plus occasions of Australia being bailed out by Lee/Warne/Gillespie contributions. It's probably closer to two dozen.

There is no way elite slips matter more.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Do we actually have any reliable metric for measuring how good a slip cordon was back in the day? I guess dropped catches are recorded now along with all the other sorts of microdata that statisticians use, but prior to 2000 or so all you can do is look at the scorebook and see the ones that were taken. It might not even be possible to say whether a given catch was taken in the slips or in the outfield.

If a higher proportion of dismissals came in the slips, does that mean the slip cordon was better? Not necessarily. You might have four or five slips for a pace bowler at the start of the innings, but only one for a spinner, or a set batsman. If half your fielders are in the slips it's obviously more likely that a batsman will be caught there.

Something we've seen quite a few times in recent years is slips standing very close on pitches where the ball isn't carrying. That way there are inevitably more dropped catches, but also chances taken that would not have reached a conventional slip position. Are we going to penalise those guys because their catching rate is relatively low, or call them elite because they take some catches that otherwise wouldn't have been possible?

 

[Bolo.]

I started off the thread with saying lower order batting, that can extend down to 9 for many teams and I never restricted it to no. 8, it's just diminishing returns much far down.

But we can do either.

We can compare the greatest cordons (1st through 3rd) vs the greatest tails (8 through 11) and take note of which had the greatest impact on their teams. We could include 5th option, plus support bowlers, but not sure if that comparison would be comparative.

We can also compare the best no 8's vs the best slip's, and again see which had the greatest impact on their teams and wins.

Even when we look at potentially the best or deepest tail, Australia 2002, I would suggest and argue that their slip cordons was still more important to team success. Think they would as well.

Even when we look at what's clearly the three best teams of my life time, the cordons for all 3 were not only superb, but the hallmarks and critical components of their success.

Warne / Waugh / Ponting

Lloyd / Richards /.Richardson

Smith / Kallis / deVilliers

The mid 70's Australian squad and the preceding SA team would be next in line and follows the same premise.


With regards to individuals, considering how critical taking 20 wickets is to actually winning tests, and how difficult they can be to come by, your second slip (who also transitions to 1st to the spinners) is at least as important if not more so than your no. 8.

I was watching some long form highlights of the west Indies in Australia in '84 and a partnership was building between Wood and another batsman where Richie made something out of what was at best a half chance. They also made reference to one that Lloyd had also taken the day prior. The average guys not only aren't taking that, there's going to be drops in-between.

In contrast I was reading some match reports from Pakistan, in I want to say Australia? where a key partnership saved the game for the opposition after they were dropped. And that shows up quite a bit for a couple teams over the past 50 years. It costs matches.

Lower order batsmen, and there have been about 7 of them who can be categorized as no. 7 / 8 batsmen, who can be seen as a tier above the rest, Dev, Procter, Vertori, Cairns, Imran, Pollock and Hadlee, are definitely important. So yes they can be impactful, but also incredibly inconsistent, hence the rpi in the mid to late 20's. And even beyond that, the wpm is also disproportionately low compared to the rpi, and that's because unless they're in abysmally bad teams that lose a lot, they generally don't get to bat twice very often. Hence again lowering their overall production and impact.

Setting a standard for 5th bowlers is tricky. Bowlers who predominantly bowled 3rd change or didn't match the production of higher slots, while maintaining a wpm of at least 1.5 leaves quite the short list. Greig has the highest wpm of exactly two, with 6 fifers and 2 ten wicket hauls, but none of the others comes close to that kind of production and of the four (the aforementioned plus de Grandhomme and McMillan) only Kallis and Greig had a s/r below 70. And there lies the rub, while doubtlessly vital and essential... For lower order batsmen even if not consistent, runs are still runs, while the wickets of the 5th bowlers comes generally at a greater cost and considerably slower. Of course that comes with the caveat that they never get the new ball and generally bowl at entrenched batsmen, but it's still a consideration. When they bowl, it's a drop off from the quality and production of your primary attack. de Grandhomme as was referenced earlier in the thread had a s/r of over 80, with one five wicket haul and no ten's.

So to answer the question, your elite slip fielder has the potential to consistently and efficiently impact and change more games than either. The tail lacks consistency and the 5th bowler lacks the efficiency.

Given the choice of Simpson, Taylor, Waugh, Sobers or Richardson in my cordon or Kallis, Greig, de Grandhomme, or McMillan bowling 3rd change in my lineup, or Imran, Vertori, Pollock, Cairns or Hadlee coming in at 7 or 8, I'll take the ones who will capitalize on all chances presented, if not creating half ones on their own.

We can all see this differently, but I'll take the one that has not only featured in and impacted victories more, but makes the bowlers, who again dictates victories, better.

A team can make by without a good 5th bowling option, they can even manage without higher end lower order batters, in the modern era however, teams haven't proven to be able to reach the standard of greatness (home and away) without the elite men in the cordon.

Why do you ignore numbers and launch diatribes so often? The numbers I posted are saying you are massively wrong. If I have made a mistake, please show me.

The only time I have ever seen a great tail and great slips in one team was RSA late 90s. The tail was more valuable by a ridiculous margin.

 

[Coronis]

Do we actually have any reliable metric for measuring how good a slip cordon was back in the day? I guess dropped catches are recorded now along with all the other sorts of microdata that statisticians use, but prior to 2000 or so all you can do is look at the scorebook and see the ones that were taken. It might not even be possible to say whether a given catch was taken in the slips or in the outfield.

If a higher proportion of dismissals came in the slips, does that mean the slip cordon was better? Not necessarily. You might have four or five slips for a pace bowler at the start of the innings, but only one for a spinner, or a set batsman. If half your fielders are in the slips it's obviously more likely that a batsman will be caught there.

Something we've seen quite a few times in recent years is slips standing very close on pitches where the ball isn't carrying. That way there are inevitably more dropped catches, but also chances taken that would not have reached a conventional slip position. Are we going to penalise those guys because their catching rate is relatively low, or call them elite because they take some catches that otherwise wouldn't have been possible?

Charles Davis’ test database has the most complete listing of where catches were taken. I believe he’s also written an article or two on slip fielding but yeah, impossible to have completely accurate numbers on older missed chances

 

[kyear2]

Why do you ignore numbers and launch diatribes so often? The numbers I posted are saying you are massively wrong. If I have made a mistake, please show me.

The only time I have ever seen a great tail and great slips in one team was RSA late 90s. The tail was more valuable by a ridiculous margin.

No idea what numbers you're talking about.

Can you be specific, I imagine you're talking about Klusener and Pollock? Pollock who was the original king of not outs and a rpi of 24? Who even Subz says wasn't exactly clutch or impactful with the bat?

And a cordon of McMillan, Cullinan and Kallis wasn't overshadowed by any margin.

Though it should be noted that the SA team that did make it to no. 1, and was definitely superior to the one of the '90's did have the superior cordon and less than stellar lower order. Actually could be argued among the best cordons ever in Smith, Kallis and de Villiers.

Also the greatest Australian team from 2002 had both a good tail and an elite cordon and the cordon was definitely and infinitely more important.

You would have it seems that it was just a pure coincidence that the best cordons that I could name were associated with the best teams in the world. It wasn't.

 

[subshakerz]

No idea what numbers you're talking about.

Can you be specific, I imagine you're talking about Klusener and Pollock? Pollock who was the original king of not outs and a rpi of 24? Who even Subz says wasn't exactly clutch or impactful with the bat?

They also had Symcox who averaged 28 with the bat coming at 9/10. McMillan often batted at no.7. Richardson at no.8. It was a ridiculously strong tail.

Though it should be noted that the SA team that did make it to no. 1, and was definitely superior to the one of the '90's did have the superior cordon and less than stellar lower order. Actually could be argued among the best cordons ever in Smith, Kallis and de Villiers.

Even that side had Philander at no.8 a very recent bat.

Also the greatest Australian team from 2002 had both a good tail and an elite cordon and the cordon was definitely and infinitely more important.

This is just factually wrong. The tail bailed out Australia far too many times for extra catches to matter more.

 

[Coronis]

They also had Symcox who averaged 28 with the bat coming at 9/10. McMillan often batted at no.7. Richardson at no.8. It was a ridiculously strong tail.


Even that side had Philander at no.8 a very recent bat.


This is just factually wrong. The tail bailed out Australia far too many times for extra catches to matter more.

Just for kyears clarity, I’d post the what was it, 15 examples you mentioned?