Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[reyrey]

The lower order batting wasn't exactly helpful, but they did select Thakur for his batting and it was an equal disaster in terms of him failing and being a down grade on any other possible bowling option.

Englands lower order added really valuable runs. Match situation would have felt completely different without those runs.

 

[ataraxia]

The funny thing about this test was that India's continued selection of Thakur (and Reddy) directly challenges kyear's idea that no teams throughout history sacrifice batting – which is, after all, his whole argument. Selecting either instead of Akash Deep is an incomparably greater blow to bowling quality than selecting Imran instead of McGrath, for a smaller batting boost.

I disagree with the selection, and it clearly turned out badly, but that's an entirely different point. The point is that teams sacrifice bowling quality for batting depth with regularity in the modern game, which is also the most logic-driven, deeply analysed version of cricket. Saying it's unprecedented is either incredibly out-of-touch or incredibly naïve.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Not sure the Thakur selection was a bad one on paper. His style of bowling should be suited to English conditions, and he should be a capable bat. He just failed to do either as well as he should have done in this Test.

 

[Xix2565]

Not sure the Thakur selection was a bad one on paper. His style of bowling should be suited to English conditions, and he should be a capable bat. He just failed to do either as well as he should have done in this Test.

No, it was bad on paper as well. He's older than you'd like, was dropped for exactly this type of performance (where he couldn't make runs or take wickets/be economical) before and his Ranji returns were largely based on minnow bashing a few teams. You could say he's not been used effectively with the ball (by taking the new ball) but he didn't show anything that suggests he's better than Siraj or even Prasidh in his spells.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t think anyone does. I just don’t think anyone else wants to vociferously argue for whatever’s more important out of these tertiary considerations.

Quite a few actually do, you don't even need to look that hard.

 

[subshakerz]

Quite a few actually do, you don't even need to look that hard.

Can you answer my question on Smith or Hammond vs Tendulkar?

 

[kyear2]

Englands lower order added really valuable runs. Match situation would have felt completely different without those runs.

Yes they did.

 

[kyear2]

The funny thing about this test was that India's continued selection of Thakur (and Reddy) directly challenges kyear's idea that no teams throughout history sacrifice batting – which is, after all, his whole argument. Selecting either instead of Akash Deep is an incomparably greater blow to bowling quality than selecting Imran instead of McGrath, for a smaller batting boost.

I disagree with the selection, and it clearly turned out badly, but that's an entirely different point. The point is that teams sacrifice bowling quality for batting depth with regularity in the modern game, which is also the most logic-driven, deeply analysed version of cricket. Saying it's unprecedented is either incredibly out-of-touch or incredibly naïve.

Yes, but them making an idiotic decision and sticking with it isn't quite the argument that you think it is.
He's basically a specialists no. 8, with the team either reluctant or scared to bowl him. Even with the other bowlers being either ineffective or expensive, he still wasn't utilized as a 4th bowling option should.

So no, it's a stupid ass strategy and idea which left then a bowler short. A 20 averaging batter would never be consistent enough to make up for the lack of bowling acumen.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, but them making an idiotic decision and sticking with it isn't quite the argument that you think it is.
He's basically a specialists no. 8, with the team either reluctant or scared to bowl him. Even with the other bowlers being either ineffective or expensive, he still wasn't utilized as a 4th bowling option should.

So no, it's a stupid ass strategy and idea which left then a bowler short. A 20 averaging batter would never be consistent enough to make up for the lack of bowling acumen.

What's your point, he already said he disagrees with the decision? His point was that teams do do this tactic commonly enough, and you didn't respond to that.