• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The value of ATG specialist bowlers vs bowling AR's/bowlers who can bat (picking the strongest all time XI)

subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
I've literally just posted where, after denying you ever said it. That toy need to knock down Ambrose a peg, similarly as you've been successful in knocking down Kallis and you say I shouldn't be taken seriously.

Tou say not everything you say or post is about Imran, but you think I posted a team with the sole intent of downgrading one player.

When you've made it clear that that's basically what you do.for anyone who opposes said player.

I said it just now and I'll say it again, Ambrose, Steyn, Hadlee is a better attack than inserting Imran into it.

When doing the other XI, and looking at the batting with Knott at 7, Imran made more sense at that point. It's not iron clad either way, but the official one has Imran in the 2nd.

You can accept it or not, bit let's not pretend that everything thing you post isn't with the intent of promoting one player, even if it's by knocking down others a peg.
Click to expand...
Blah blah. Dude you should have never admitted to have made an ATG XI with the sole purpose of excluding Imran because you don't like how others rate him. There isn't a recovery from that, sorry.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Because it not.

You've literally just made it up.

That's the ultimate strawman argument.

The crazy part is that everyone here only accepts views that they agree with. The same writers and former players are otherwise referenced and accepted, until it doesn't fit into your preferred narrative. And instead of trying to understand the why, it's dismissed.

That's like cherry picking the bible to find the stuff you do right and ignoring the parts that speaks to what you wrong.

Sutcliffe wasn't that highly rated either, not in comparison to the 3Hs, Bradman or Headley.

But we see the average and we run with it.
Click to expand...
Okay why not, I just halved the averages of Bradman and Hobbs to make a point of the vast difference between them: what's wrong with that? Averages tend to be good estimators of how good a player is.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
ataraxia said:
Okay why not, I just halved the averages of Bradman and Hobbs to make a point of the vast difference between them: what's wrong with that? Averages tend to be good estimators of how good a player is.
Click to expand...
I really can't tell if you're being serious right now.

That's not how cricket works, it not how anything works tbh.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
kyear2 said:
I really can't tell if you're being serious right now.

That's not how cricket works, it not how anything works tbh.
Click to expand...
Care explain why? In tests, McGrath scores half the runs per wicket that Laker does, so he's half as good a batsman. In the same vein, Hadlee is half as good as Tendulkar. Laker and Tendulkar are actually more than twice as valuable to their team, because of their relatively higher RPIs, but it's not about that. This is a way of quantifying the 43-run-per-wicket difference between Bradman and Hobbs in mortal and easier-to-comprehend terms.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
So I want to get into this.

I think that Marshall and McGrath are the two best and greatest bowlers that not only that I've seen, but that's ever played the game. There's no argument for me beyond that, if you're the best two, you're opening the attack. The fact that they perfectly compliment each other is an added bonus, as well as the fact that McGrath is perfectly suited to go against the wind. The fact that they've been key if not the key contributors for the two dynasties of the game, and has taken part in more high profile, high pressure "championship" series than anyone else and been extremely clutch in them, and are renowned for taking high quality top order wickets makes it a no contest, again for me.

So I don't think that anyone is close to those two from the perspectives of these exercises.

Not to address your post. You said that his selection is not base don batting, but that he's close enough to...
That's saying two things.
1) you believe that if he batted like McGrath, that he's still an automatic selection for you, or at least in contention.
2) he's not as good, but not that far off.

For the majority of the forum, he's 8th, so no I don't think that for the most of us, he's still a primary option of he couldn't bat.

And for the end point, if he's not the best, but not that far off, why am I considering him.


Please tell me what is wrong with any of that.
Click to expand...

Ok first off. I don’t believe anybody has said it is wrong to select Marshall and McGrath or in general whoever someone thinks are the two best pacers.

You do however tell people that its wrong for Imran. This is based on your perceived rankings, and the gaps between those players. Whilst the rankings may be different and the gaps may be different for other people, as I believe multiple of those people have stated in this thread already. Similar to what you said earlier regarding you with Imran and Ambrose. That’s what’s occuring here. Do you understand?


kyear2 said:
And as I've also said repeatedly in this thread, as much as I'm being told that I'm wrong, I've literally never seen an XI that included Imran and Hadlee, it presumably doesn't exist..
Click to expand...
Actually, in the poll from the thread you’re referencing, there are quite a few. In fact, of the 18 Imran voters half of them also voted for Hadlee. So I’m assuming they would have both.

Specifically,

bagapath
shortpitched713
ankitj
Fuller Pilch
OverratedSanity
trundler
ataraxia
Bolo.
capt_luffy

I know I respect and rate some of these guys opinions and analysis quite highly, I believe you may also have expressed that same appreciation at some point.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Cipher said:
Hey everyone new poster here,

Just wanted your thoughts on the difference between picking an ATG specialist bowler vs a very good bowler who can bat.
Would it not be better to have bowlers who can get you an extra 20 runs with their batting
compared to an ATG bowler who might average getting out a top 6 bat for a few runs less?

I'll give an example to highlight this:

Bowling
Curtly Ambrose gets a 55 Avg Batsman out for 38 runs (69.4% 'discount factor')
Shaun Pollock gets a 55 Avg Batsman out for 42 runs (76.6 % 'discount factor')
So Curtly on average gets them out for 4 runs cheaper.
(Discount factor based off the post by Ankitj) cricketweb.net/forum/threads/how-valuable-is-that-wicket.48524

Batting
Ambrose averages 12.40 with the bat
Pollock averages 32.31 with the bat.
So Pollock on average makes almost 20 more runs than Ambrose per innings.

Based on these numbers Curtly would need to take 5 wickets in an innings to make up this difference in runs compared to Pollock (5 x 4=20).
Assuming that the other 3/4 bowlers in the team are also of high quality, its unlikely Ambrose gets that many himself anyway.

Obviously this is a very stats nerd way of looking at things & purely based on averages but;
Based on the numbers from Ankitj's post - players who could bowl very well vs top/middle order batsman & bat themselves such as
A.Davidson (68.3%) K.Miller (73.7%), Pollock (76.6%) R.Lindwall (77.8%) may potentially provide a higher positive value of runs than some of the ATG bowlers.

Note: I didn't mention Khan or Hadlee because you could say they are ATG bowlers in their own right but you could make the case for them based on this over Marshall/Mcgrath/Ambrose as well.

Obviously you can claim that a top tier Mcgrath/Ambrose type bowler is slightly more likely to get someone out than a 2nd tier Miller/Pollock/Lindwall but is that worth a notable difference in runs scored when batting? Especially considering runs in the tail may be more decisive when the top 7 are scoring less against star studded bowling attacks.

Interested to hear your points for or against!
Click to expand...
This was a great post for a new poster.

I wonder if he will ever return to CW after this experience.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Coronis said:
Ok first off. I don’t believe anybody has said it is wrong to select Marshall and McGrath or in general whoever someone thinks are the two best pacers.

You do however tell people that its wrong for Imran. This is based on your perceived rankings, and the gaps between those players. Whilst the rankings may be different and the gaps may be different for other people, as I believe multiple of those people have stated in this thread already. Similar to what you said earlier regarding you with Imran and Ambrose. That’s what’s occuring here. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
Are you hopeful that you will get a straight answer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top