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

[smash84]

Pollock no, Davidson is interesting but probs no. They are same tier for lack of Bumrah's longevity and injury issues, not on terms of skills and abilities imho, to which I definitely think Bumrah is in the top echelon.

If I have 2 bowlers I think are close, I will most often take the better batsman. McGrath and Hadlee is just that. Imran offers something different and is a proper allrounder. Nothing more to it.

There is a very good reason for not picking Pollock over Bumrah.

Just look at Bumrah's record against the best side of his era and compare that to Pollock's.

 

[Cipher]

No offence at all, but that's the laziest refrain used here to justify the bat deep approach.

Yes every run matters, but that also works on the flip side of things as with the runs your bowlers allow as well.

Miller was a great bowler, Botham really good. Neither was of the standard that you want from your primary 4 bowlers in this scenario. Miller wpm was barely over 3, and Botham's numbers weren't nearly AT, which highlighted his lack of consistency in-between those match winning performances. And serous question, don't you think there's a reason why people don't include them in such efforts,.outside of in an All rounder capacity. It's like everyone thinks they've somehow invested the wheel.

It's like it's a devaluating of primary disciples, and all at the alter of who can bat better, same with wicketkeeping, where some misguided souls believe that Pant would be a better option than Knott, I wouldn't select him even over Godfrey Evans.

Yes they're great bowlers, but again, have you asked yourself why we've never seen such a lineup selected, not by former cricketers, not by writers, pundits not even here on CW. This discussion isn't new by any stretch and there was a thread dedicated to such a such a discussion about a year ago where this topic was extensively litigated and the end result quite conclusive.

I can definitively say that McGrath was a better bowler across a wider range of conditions and opponents over the scope of his career than Imran. One can raise questions with regards to the latter as to how successful he would have been without the aides that he engaged in that wouldn't have been as easily accessible in later eras. Imran being primarily a inswing bowler was more limited in the scope of dismissals at his disposal and could be more restrictive in some conditions with greater bounce.

Hadlee is a totally different proposition and is purely a preference choice and the final cut for me and purely because I think Wasim was the absolute best with the old ball and his peer rating was through the roof. Him vs Hadlee is literally the only difficult choice for my team.

And again, I will wrap up this part of my response with this, if you're factoring batting into your selection for your no. 11 batsman, who's also your opening bowler, not only have you lost the plot, but you're devaluating the importance of what they're primarily there to do.

And while you say everyone must bat, they have to field as well and of those you do need at least 2 great slips, preferably 3 if not a gully and some others as well. The wild part about the bat deep guys is that so much importance and angst is assigned there, but other auxiliary skills are completely ignored. Fun fact, for guys like Lillee, McGrath, Hadlee and to a slightly lesser extent Marshall, the large majority of their dismissals were caught behind the wicket, and when we look at any and all of the great modern teams, going back as far as the 60's, a hallmark of their success lay in assertive batting, fast bowling and slip catching. Australia, the W.I, S.A through the 60's and early 70's, before recycling through those names again from the late 70's through the 2000's.
What is indisputable and borne out through history is that it's pretty difficult if not impossible to be a truly great team without catching support, while the same isn't remotely true with regards to late order batting. And for each and every one of those squads, the cordon was more important and impactful than the lower order batting. Not only that, but outside of the Pakistani duo, all the of the great modern pacers, and even spinners had premium catching support, with at least one elite guy at 2nd.
And the great thing is that at this purported higher level where for the other auxiliary skills there will be depreciation, there's none for catching, and the value remains the same.

So I imagine that with the importance of same, that you place similar importance and oriority to catching when selecting your teams? That since you want the best ever tail of the ATGs to get every run, that you also want the best ever cordon of the ATGs to take every chance, and want Hammond, Sobers and Richards standing back there?

But of course not, you still want Sachin in the line up as arguable the best mid order bat after Bradman and you balance the auxiliary need, with the primary one, with a higher weighting going to primary. So what's the difference with the bowlers. That's the disconnect.

And yes, that's a direct question.

Why else would you justify batting deep if not for runs scored? It's not lazy at all, it's just the plain simple reason you would do it.

How many runs an innings do you think your bowlers of Marshall, McGrath, Warne & Wasim save compared to my team of Marshall, Hadlee, Warne & Khan? Or more simply McGrath & Wasim vs Hadlee & Khan? Personally I think Wasim & Khan cancel each other out. Hadlee & McGrath are pretty close too, but for your sake lets say McGrath pips Hadlee by getting out the top 7 bats at about 3 runs less per wicket. Which aligns with Ankitj's old post. Hadlee is still scoring on average 20 runs more than McGrath an innings. So unless McGrath is taking 7 wickets compared to Hadlee's 7 the trade off is better to have Hadlee.

Yeah of course, people do have a minimum threshold of what the best bowlers should be in an ATG XI. Botham & Miller don't meet it but it was more of a fun exercise to see how much importance people put on the primary skill of bowling & whether good batting could bridge that gap. I wouldn't choose them as my best 2 bowlers either as you've said the opening bowlers are probably the most important players in the side. Which is why I still have Marshall (number 1 bowler) & Hadlee (number 3 bowler imo), I've got one of the best 2 spinners ever in Warne. And then my 4th bowler/1st change (Imran) is still one of the best ever but I value the trade off that his runs provide over the slightly better ranked bowlers.

If you can find that thread I would be glad to read it.

The difference with my selections are that they end up being the 8th & 9th batter not the 11th. Sure if I was picking Jaques Kallis as my 11th over McGrath for my bowling that would be crazy because I wouldn't be confident at all that with him as the bowling leader we would take 20 wickets.

You'll probably see how I've chosen my batsman later in the thread. I guess when you talk about balancing the primary/auxiliary need that's what I've done with my bowlers. I've made sure to have the best 2 bowlers in their style, my 3rd bowler Hadlee is in the top 3 (can bat decently) & then my 4th is still very good but covers the balance well by being a decent bat as well.

I've used the same approach with my batsman in some sense. I wanted to have Bradman, Tendulkar & Sobers in there no matter what due to their primary skill + what sobers offers as an AR. Then the remaining 3 was decided on that two of them must be top order batsman (Hobbs & Richards) & that hopefully the last is a middle order bat (Smith). I lucked out on Sobers, Viv & Smith being top class fielders. But if Viv & Smith weren't maybe I would reconsider my selections for those final 2 prioritised batsman.

 

[Coronis]

There is a very good reason for not picking Pollock over Bumrah.

Just look at Bumrah's record against the best side of his era and compare that to Pollock's.

How about Pollock after 45 tests?

 

[smash84]

How about Pollock after 45 tests?

For some reason I can't recall Pollock being very good against Aus and the overall averages check out. Was he any good in the beginning?

 

[Coronis]

For some reason I can't recall Pollock being very good against Aus and the overall averages check out. Was he any good in the beginning?

He struggled in his first series at home against them (2 matches, 4 @ 27.75) but did very well in his first away series against them (3 matches, 16 @ 21.93) unfortunately, this turned out to be his only success against them.

 

[smash84]

He struggled in his first series at home against them (2 matches, 4 @ 27.75) but did very well in his first away series against them (3 matches, 16 @ 21.93) unfortunately, this turned out to be his only success against them.

Yeah, I think having seen enough of Pollock against the Aussies I'd go bumrah

 

[shortpitched713]

Just because you have to bat at 11, doesn't mean it has to factor into it.

Yeah, literally no one cares about batting contribution at 11. Even if you had Bradman there, his contribution per innings would be little (sure you'd call him an overrated bat though, due to high # of not outs )

But going up from there there can be a bit of a tradeoff. Number 10 I don't really care about batting much either, so on my 10 and 11 I picked the two I believe are the absolute best bowlers in modern cricket history, Murali and McGrath. 9 I consider batting a bit more, and I pick Hadlee out of a field of 4 or 5 plausible candidates, as he is the best bat out of them. Number 8 I'm considering batting even a bit more, and the best remaining bowling allrounder at that slot is Imran OR I could get Steyn or Marshall at the cost of runs for batting. Given that this is a 3rd seamer that I am trying to pick up, I go with the batting of a genuine allrounder, and take the tiny hit to my bowling potency. 7 and up, obviously have to be very high quality batting WK or batting all-rounders.

Same logic could apply if you think Marshall and Warne are the absolute best possible seam and spin bowlers. Placing them at 10 and 11, you could pick Hadlee and Imran at 9 and 8 and lose a miniscule amount of bowling.

The actual records of players bear this out. At the generous end of plausibility in favor of the outright specialists, we can say Hadlee could be 98% value of the best possible 2nd seamer, and Imran 94-95% (not assuming peak bowler, but most overall career representative genuine allrounder version) of the best possible 3rd seamer. Your overall frontline 4 attack strength is 98% of the theoretical maximum. That's a net loss of only 5-6 extra runs from an innings total.

On the other hand, you net a minimum of 25-30 runs per inning with the bat choosing the Imran/Hadlee pair as compared to the full specialist route. These are not your ordinary bowling all-rounders. That's why this situation is special, and why people are tempted to go this route, if the goal is to maximize win probability.

As I've mentioned earlier, if we got real outliers, like Bumrah and other bowlers end up taking 350 wickets at an average of 17, then we'd be living in a different reality. But such a player hasn't yet existed in the history of cricket that actually happened. We live in the history with OP 80s all-rounders.

 

[kyear2]

You're creating a couple of straw men here.

People pick a pace attack including Hadlee and Imran exactly because they're convinced they can do the primary job of bowling as well as anyone else. Heck Hadlee as a new ball specialist and Imran as an old ball specialist at change, it could be argued are being picked only because of their specialized bowling capabilities being at the very pinnacle for their role. It's not that lower order batting is more important, but that an ATG XI provides you a UNIQUE opportunity that no other teams that can normally be selected for Tests, present you. If Bumrah and idk Jamieson or someone end up averaging 17 and 18 with the ball respectively, then maybe we might have to abandon the ATG bowling allrounders. But the history of cricket didn't end up going that way.

ATG batsmen to me, are an even more interchangeable bunch than bowlers. Give these teams a couple of years to tour together, and all the specialist middle order batsmen could be expected to score about the same amount of runs, be it Tendulkar, Lara, Viv, Smith, or whomever. So this is another rather strawman.

I 100% agree with you though on there being 2 ways to build an ATG XI. Every pundit/ex player goes for the "representation of cricket history" type approach, and that's understandable, but for me I'm a nerd and I'm going to maximize to win that one off Test/series. Sorry not sorry.

I do understand your perspective, but it's also not true not fully.

Hadlee obviously makes it for many here, the last poll he was in an easy tie for 2nd.

To say that Imran easily makes it when bowling alone is in consideration, considering he hardly makes it when batting is factored in.

My main point has been that if batting plays no role, Imran isn't a top contender for the spot, even if as you've specified, because of reverse, because the general consensus inside and outside of CW was that Steyn and especially Wasim was better with the old ball.

I've already said Hadlee is a strong contender, especially within the confines of CW, outside he's never quite been.

Yes I do agree that playing with these AT XIs does present UNIQUE opportunities to not only pick the best of the best, but also try to figure out where exactly to place priorities in same and how that's balanced.

And you've entirely missed the point with regards to that batsmen, but no surprise there. But even with the batsmen, there are some who's proven themselves over their career in different ways, some with consistency, some with the ability to handle and even dominate pavers like no one else, some just had the ability to elevate themselves and take in the world, and that's a fairly small group.

And with regards to you saying it's not more important, you have a history of saying that not only that it was, but that they and even guys like Pollock makes up you top 6 or so players all time? So you do place an elevated and disproportionately so value to the skill.

And even in all of that you've ignored part of what was actually proposed. If for you the gap is so very incredibly small for bowlers that you would still select an Imran over McGrath, someone if I recall correctly you rate as the GOAT (not only are you devaluating the skill for which they're going to be primarily selected), I assume that the same would go for other skills, that Hammond or Chappell would easily eclipse Sachin, because they bring an added dimension that he simply can't provide.

And you're again being intentionally disingenuous to prove a point. Pundits do also build a team to win in the field and for most teams they come with writeups. Crowe was very clear that Marshall and Lillee were the best new ball bowlers he had seen and Wasim would be the 3rd prong in a lethal attack. E.W. Swanton chose his team for batting aggression, bowling variety and fielding prowess, he chose Marshall, Davidson, O'Reilly and Gibbs. Boycott also spoke of balance between aggression and defence and taking the best possible attack, choosing Marshall, Lillee, Barnes and Warne. You think that Wisden was just choosing representatives from cricket history when they selected Marshall, Barnes, Wasim and Warne?
You're just trying to justify your guys not making it and it's kinda intellectually dishonest.

Everyone is choosing teams they think would win, on CW last year we had a similar exercise, Wasim and Imran finished in a distant tie for 4th with the majority of the forum going with Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, with the latter two tied for 2nd.

So yes, when I'm building mine, I don't care who avenged what in 1910, I look for who I believe not only represents the best team, that compliment each other, but who I'm sure is capable of performing vs the best opposition. I also look at complimenting an anchor or two with aggressive batting, the best possible bowling attack that also maintains excellent batting depth to 10 and a good fielding 11 highlighted by by an elite cordon.

Even when looking at AI XI's and asking for the criteria and write-ups for their XI's, it almost always comes down to the same 3 names. Marshall, McGrath, Wasim and Warne and it all comes down to the best bowlers and the added advantage that it also provides good batting depth.

So yes, mine is also very much built to win, and that requires who I believe is best suited to do that, and is less distracted by the batting average of my no. 11. You speak of winning but give all of absolutely zero thought as to who is catching the edges that the bowlers create.

 

[kyear2]

I only ever mentioned that because I personally see Sutcliffe and Hutton as pretty much equal tbh. Similar to the Murali/Warne conundrum. Nobody’s saying you shouldn’t have the best bowlers. You yourself have clearly defined gaps between certain bowlers. For others the gaps may not be so large or clearly defined. That’s why the batting as the secondary skill comes into play. This is why it doesn’t make sense from your pov but it does to others.

I would like to disagree on the former and that basically people just choose their favorites and find ways to justify it.

Sutcliffe for example. In the annals of cricket history there isn't a stat, written word or anecdote that suggests that Sutcliffe was the equal of Hutton.

In the consensus of all, the great English batsmen that stood above all others were Hobbs, Hammond and Hutton, before then is Grace and right below, Compton / May.

Yes we come to our own opinions, but for a player who none of us have seen, and with no literature to back up such an assessment, for a batsman who played in easier conditions and faced easier bowlers, with more support and still batted even slower.

With regards to differing opinions and defined gaps, they clearly exist on the forums as well, and are represented not only in the results of pills, but the ridiculous gulfs of the votes in said polls.

There is generally a top 3 around here, that's more than well established and Imran is generally then ranked below Steyn, the spinners and Ambrose as well. Outside of the likes of Smali, Subz and ORS, Imran isn't in the mix, the batting is just that large of an overriding factor. To me it isn't.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Just look at Bumrah's record against the best side of his era and compare that to Pollock's.

Pollock's record against South Africa's biggest challenge is considerably better than Bumrah's record against India's biggest challenge though.

 

[shortpitched713]

I do understand your perspective, but it's also not true not fully.

Hadlee obviously makes it for many here, the last poll he was in an easy tie for 2nd.

To say that Imran easily makes it when bowling alone is in consideration, considering he hardly makes it when batting is factored in.

My main point has been that if batting plays no role, Imran isn't a top contender for the spot, even if as you've specified, because of reverse, because the general consensus inside and outside of CW was that Steyn and especially Wasim was better with the old ball.

I've already said Hadlee is a strong contender, especially within the confines of CW, outside he's never quite been.

Yes I do agree that playing with these AT XIs does present UNIQUE opportunities to not only pick the best of the best, but also try to figure out where exactly to place priorities in same and how that's balanced.

And you've entirely missed the point with regards to that batsmen, but no surprise there. But even with the batsmen, there are some who's proven themselves over their career in different ways, some with consistency, some with the ability to handle and even dominate pavers like no one else, some just had the ability to elevate themselves and take in the world, and that's a fairly small group.

And with regards to you saying it's not more important, you have a history of saying that not only that it was, but that they and even guys like Pollock makes up you top 6 or so players all time? So you do place an elevated and disproportionately so value to the skill.

And even in all of that you've ignored part of what was actually proposed. If for you the gap is so very incredibly small for bowlers that you would still select an Imran over McGrath, someone if I recall correctly you rate as the GOAT (not only are you devaluating the skill for which they're going to be primarily selected), I assume that the same would go for other skills, that Hammond or Chappell would easily eclipse Sachin, because they bring an added dimension that he simply can't provide.

And you're again being intentionally disingenuous to prove a point. Pundits do also build a team to win in the field and for most teams they come with writeups. Crowe was very clear that Marshall and Lillee were the best new ball bowlers he had seen and Wasim would be the 3rd prong in a lethal attack. E.W. Swanton chose his team for batting aggression, bowling variety and fielding prowess, he chose Marshall, Davidson, O'Reilly and Gibbs. Boycott also spoke of balance between aggression and defence and taking the best possible attack, choosing Marshall, Lillee, Barnes and Warne. You think that Wisden was just choosing representatives from cricket history when they selected Marshall, Barnes, Wasim and Warne?
You're just trying to justify your guys not making it and it's kinda intellectually dishonest.

Everyone is choosing teams they think would win, on CW last year we had a similar exercise, Wasim and Imran finished in a distant tie for 4th with the majority of the forum going with Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, with the latter two tied for 2nd.

So yes, when I'm building mine, I don't care who avenged what in 1910, I look for who I believe not only represents the best team, that compliment each other, but who I'm sure is capable of performing vs the best opposition. I also look at complimenting an anchor or two with aggressive batting, the best possible bowling attack that also maintains excellent batting depth to 10 and a good fielding 11 highlighted by by an elite cordon.

Even when looking at AI XI's and asking for the criteria and write-ups for their XI's, it almost always comes down to the same 3 names. Marshall, McGrath, Wasim and Warne and it all comes down to the best bowlers and the added advantage that it also provides good batting depth.

So yes, mine is also very much built to win, and that requires who I believe is best suited to do that, and is less distracted by the batting average of my no. 11. You speak of winning but give all of absolutely zero thought as to who is catching the edges that the bowlers create.

There's quite a bit wrong with that, and I'm not going to do point by point because the common theme with you is to always beat down strawmen, and ignore the crux of any argument you are confronted with.

The actual records of players bear this out. At the generous end of plausibility in favor of the outright specialists, we can say Hadlee could be 98% value of the best possible 2nd seamer, and Imran 94-95% (not assuming peak bowler, but most overall career representative genuine allrounder version) of the best possible 3rd seamer. Your overall frontline 4 attack strength is 98% of the theoretical maximum. That's a net loss of only 5-6 extra runs from an innings total.

On the other hand, you net a minimum of 25-30 runs per inning with the bat choosing the Imran/Hadlee pair as compared to the full specialist route. These are not your ordinary bowling all-rounders. That's why this situation is special, and why people are tempted to go this route, if the goal is to maximize win probability.

Refute this point of mine, the one where I'm talking about actual runs, and you'll realize you're simply not making up those runs. I'm being very generous with those figures too. No way second and third bowler choices (all candidates of whom are averaging within about a run and a half or less of one another) are making up the batting runs difference.

It's okay that you think Imran was a cheater, and shouldn't take a place among the ATG. Just say it that way. Otherwise there's no way you can't admit he's not a unique player to combine that level of bowling and batting, period. It's not at all obvious that he isn't among the best choices to be number 8 on an all-time XI. You're having to appeal to magical subjective qualities asides from runs and wickets to do so. It's pathetic.

 

[shortpitched713]

Like for real, you're bringing up Shaun Pollock, and batting at number 11 position. **** that literally no one ever brought up.

It's absolute shithousery of tactics in arguing out a point.

 

[kyear2]

Long post here so I appreciate it if you get through it.

The thing is people will rate other ATG bowlers who have a similar amount of away appearances. If we move Imran's record back to the beginning of the series against India (21 Nov 1979) It's now 26 matches at 21.13. How does that compare to similar match records?
Miller 27 total matches at 25.48
Davidson 27 total matches at 20.10
Lillee 26 total matches at 24.28
Trueman 20 total matches at 26.08
Grimmet 18 total matches at 23.86
Laker 17 total matches at 28.60
Barnes 17 total matches at 17.96
O'Reilly 15 total matches at 21.18

Other names who played less than 26 away matches include: Harold Larwood, Frank Tyson, Ian Bishop & Colin Croft.

These are highly regarded bowlers of which several ex players have said are amongst the best they've ever faced.
Why is Imran being held to a different standard? He can't control the match scheduling of his country or when injuries occur.
This was a solid 8 years of ATG bowling from 27 years old to 35, it's not a short peak.

Sure you can look at a players overall record if you wish but from my opinion, had Imran not changed his action to bowl faster in 1976 while playing county cricket, learned reverse swing bowling around 1977 & improved his bowling ability from 1979 onwards he wouldn't be in the conversation as an ATG. You rate the player when they are the finished product, not when they are called up early. In a similar vein we don't judge Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar or Ricky Ponting's overall ability for their last few years when they were over the hill. James Anderson was an average bowler in his first few years before it clicked for him, we don't remember him for that. Khan is the same as a late bloomer.

I know that's your point & I've been agreeing with you the whole time that if it's on bowling alone you pick McGrath.
The reason why I pick option 6 as my 4th bowler is because of the combination of his primary bowling & secondary batting skill (which you also agreed would be handy for a number 8) which has been the point of my discussion the whole time (the overall value of the player to the team not just their bowling). I can also argue his fast old ball bowling (reverse swing) makes him a dangerous option later in the match, which blends well with my opening bowlers who offer different skills (Hadlee accuracy/movement & Marshall pace/movement).

The point about Khan not averaging over 30 anywhere was merely to say that he could perform in all conditions & wasn't just a home ground hero. Singling out McGrath's record in Pakistan was just a cheeky dig, of course I rate McGrath's bowling higher.

How much does it matter what my 4th best bowler (Marshall, Hadlee, Warne > Khan) does with the ball over someone else slightly better in comparison to the additional batting he brings? If my other 3 bowlers are doing the heavy lifting getting out the best batsmen, it might even be more advantageous for me to have Khan who can bowl faster reverse swing at the tail in comparison to McGrath with the old ball. He still has his uses against the batsman as well, he was quite economical (so could be used as a holding bowler while Warne spins his magic at the other end) & he could still get the best out like Gavaskar & G.Chappell (albeit not as well as some other giant killers would).

With regards to match winning performances with batting, how many times do you think someone who batted at 7 or 8 for the vast majority of their wins (23/26 matches) is the one scoring the match winning runs with the bat? Pakistan had a good batting lineup in those days, from the 15 matches Pakistan won in the 4th innings he only batted in 2 of them! He scored the winning runs in one (which you mentioned) & was out for a duck in the other (coincidentally this was his last match). Compare this to all the games they lost in the 4th innings: 7 times. Only in 1 game did they lose by less than 100 runs. Against Australia by 92 runs when they were set a target of 429... (he still scored 45 from 111 balls in that knock btw). So really it was never a personal failure of his that they lost considering the margins of their loss (he still averaged 30 in those 4th innings losses as well). Had he needed to walk out to the middle with 50 or even 100 runs to win & failed that is fair enough but such a situation never arose.

26 matches out of 88 is already a low amount of wins to pick from. Coupled with the fact that test matches between teams of varying ability is most likely going to be won by 50 runs or more (Over 85% according to this article) The 80's only had a result only 54% of the time (Source) so a draw is the most likely result. So what about his efforts salvaging a draw in the 4th innings? From his 5 innings, he only got out once!

So how about consistency of getting a start? (20 runs) And how does that compare to a batsman that batted for a similar amount of innings?
Khan was dismissed 47 times out of 126 Innings for 19 runs or less.
Doug Walters (125 innings Average 48.26) dismissed 50 times/125 for 19 or less.
So he's actually slightly more consistent for starts than a very good bat.
What about someone known for being hard to dismiss?
Bill Lawry (123 innings Average 47.15) Lawry got out 47/123 for 19 runs or less.

So it would appear that Khan was no less consistent than some high quality specialist batsmen. I believe I have read somewhere that the difference a batsman makes in his average is the ability to make bigger scores once he has a start.

So between 2 ATG sides with little to split, where the margin of victory is likely to be smaller. Those runs in the tail could make the difference. Imran has shown that he averages 30 even in 4th innings losing tests. So in a 5 match series where variance matters less I am sure that the extra runs he provides could be a difference maker.

Well thought out post, and quite frankly I really didn't want to make this a referendum on one Imran Khan, but again that's the fun part about selecting these teams, you get the best examples for most types of players and even skill combinations, and he's the perfect prototype for this discussion.

Let me start out by saying is that Imran's quality doesn't disqualify him from this or any discussion. He's a top 10 bowler and above decent as a lower order bat. Contrary to Subz, I don't think that he's a test standard lower order batsman, because he clearly wasn't.

But he's not my choice for a couple of reasons. When I reference Wasim and list the reasons that he's selected, I primarily go with 3 reasons. 1) He could swing both the old or the new ball both directions. 2) He was rated, even here as the best old ball bowler ever, reverse or no reverse, just ahead of Steyn. 3) He had an incredibly high peer rating and somehow an even higher pundit one, making almost every single credible AT XI in the last couple decades.

Each of those criteria is in stark contrast to his countryman.
1) Imran was primarily an inswing bowler, and this did hamper him at times when he wasn't getting calls like he did at home or when playing in conditions that provided higher bounce.
2) Imran's effectiveness often relied on if he was able to "prepare" the ball effectively enough to generate reverse swing. He's also lauded by some for being a s/ c specialist or a dead pitch bowler, but neither is close to being true. Both of these are based purely on his home perfirmances, because SL were full on minnow quality and he was horrible in India. There's also the very reasonable question of whether he was to play his entire career under the scrutiny of cameras and DRS, how different would his home and overall numbers have been. I would argue that apart from a few spinners, no one's number would have been impacted more.
3) while Wasim had an insane peer rating, Imran's was not close to being in par. When I read, listen to interviews, or talk to players from that era, none of them rate Imran as even being among the best they've faced or watched. Martin Crowe played in the same team as Hadlee, played against Imran, quite a bit actually, and both made his second team. When in an interview Viv was asked who the best he faced were, it was Marshall and Lillee, when pressed for a 3rd name he went with Willis.

I'm not saying Imran wasn't an amazing cricketer, he really was. He was the 2nd greatest all rounder ever and he really saved Pakistan's bacon a few times with his batting.
I think that his batsman equivalent / mirror image player is Wally Hammond. A top 10, but not quite top tier batsman, GOAT at primary auxiliary skill, plus he had his bowling. I'm not taking Hammond over Tendulkar either, though there's quite similar, even compelling reasons to do so.

To respond specially to your post. Imran isn't held to a different standard, in fact he's the only one where we segment his career and offer the amount of caveats that we do.

You also ask how important it is how well your 4th bowler does? Quite a bit as he's your 1st change bowler and will be bowling quite a bit in tandem with Warne with the older ball.

With regards to your batting points, yes his runs could make a difference, I also was very clear as to why I believe he wasn't the first choice for bowling. And specially his batting impact to an AT contest, I have a post (or thread) that I'll dedicate to that.

My point with regards to one single victory when chasing in the 4th innings was purely because you said he's the one you would trust in such scenarios.

Finally, and I think we can wrap up here, and I do thank you for a respectful discourse. For me, if you're not on my bowler (or batsman) short list to begin with, nothing else really matters. And as far as my 3rd pacer options go, he's behind Wasim, Hadlee and Steyn. And finally, as I've said repeatedly, there's no way I'm choosing three bowlers form the same era. It's like choosing three batsmen from the 30's. Five me 3 guys from different eras, who experienced a wide variety of conditions and batsmen, and the best from their eras ahead of the 4th best bowler from one specific era.

 

[kyear2]

This is really unequivocally not true.

Yeah, I believe you rate a player over their entire career.

Imran was an outlier, so I have no issue with the '74 to '88 timeline, but it has to apply to both disciplines.

 

[Bolo.]

If you are confused about why people are not just picking the best bowler, ask yourself if you would pick Ambrose or Steyn as your 4th bowler if they also batted like Lara or Chappell. OFC you would. Anyone with any sense would pick about 5 players of this quality, as long as there was sufficient variety. They would annhilate a team of specialists.

The above shows that the principle of picking your best bowlers is very clearly not an actual principle, but rather a practical decision based on available resources. When resources like Hadlee and Imran are available, you need to question why you are not utilising them. Because of a commitment to a principle that you fundamentally don't believe?

If you simply don't rate them that highly, that's cool. I disagree, but at least you will maintain logical consistency.

@kyear2 or anyone else with a similar position.

 

[kyear2]

I largely select the batsman on their batting ability and take their fielding ability as a bonus. Admittedly I am not putting much consideration in for their slipping ability but perhaps I should be.

Having a good cordon probably is the most important skill, a good 5th option would be 2nd & lower order batting 3rd.

By luck the current side I would pick has a pretty good cordon. Currently my team is:
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Viv Richards (Hutton if Viv not allowed)
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Steve Smith (Viv if I have to pick Hutton)
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan
9. Richard Hadlee
10. Malcolm Marshall
11. Shane Warne

So my slips would probably be a choice of Sobers, Smith, Richards & Warne.

So I look at all of the secondary skills from your perspective that you apply to batsmen.

As I've mentioned selecting Imran is a bit like selecting Hammond, that's putting a bit too high of a weighting on secondary considerations.

On the highlighted bit, although that was once my though process, I kinda now disagree a little with the order but it's really complicated.

I do think that having an elite cordon is no. 1, nor argument there, but I do believe that having a good tail that wags is 2nd most important, but only very marginally ahead of having a good fifth bowler.

But..... Having a 5th bowler is the only one built into team selections, as it's a definite must. What isn't a must though, is that they have to excel, and just by performing their functions without negative impact, ie relieving pressure or even worse, being taken apart, they've done their job. You want someone to facilitate the smooth flow of the rotation and allowing the main guys to get a rest and bowl some of the dog overs with the spinner. If, like Kallis and even Hammond used to, they break a few partnerships, then it's definitely a bonus. I don't include Sobers as he was just a ridiculous outlier and facilitates so much more.

So in terms of must have on the team, 5th bowler is probably 2nd, in terms of actual impact, they're probably or likely last.

In terms of an AT scenario, Sobers does so very much that it complicates things. He can either be your 4th seamer or 2nd spinner depending on conditions, or even be your 3rd seamer and allow them to play Murali and be first change. The flexibility that provides is invaluable, even though some here might argue that you don't want him bowling at all. But on a rank turner or deteriorating pitch and Warne and Sobers with his Chinamen would be a handful.

But none of it touches the value of taking every opportunity in the cordon off your pace and spin attack.

Having a Hadlee or Imran (under no scenario am I playing both) certainly would be of tremendous benefit as well, but by the very nature of "lower order" batting it's just so incredibly inconsistent, but there's a more than decent chance that one game they help to save or win a contest. But does that overcome the fact that Imran has less weapons than Wasim at his disposal and just isn't reliable away from home? You certainly have made some good points though.

To touch on your team and cordon, Warne just isn't good enough for me. I've seen most of his career and no, he's a little bit of a liability. That's one of the 3 reasons Barry is a lock for my squad. Barry, Garry and Viv are elite with literally no sacrifice for primary. Hammond is definitely an upgrade over Barry at 1st, just as Imran is over Wasim at 8, but the primary has to matter as well.

As you've listed yours, mine is

Len Hutton | Barry Richards^
Don Bradman ©| Sachin Tendulkar | Viv Richards^
Garry Sobers^ | Adam Gilchrist + | Wasim Akram
Malcom Marshall | Shane Warne | Glenn McGrath

I will say though, that one scenario where Imran does have a better chance to make the team is if I were to take Knott over Gilchrist.

But yeah, slip cordon, lower order, 5th bowler.

In an AT scenario, Sobers flexibility complicates the order a little. And that's what separates and elevates Sobers above other all rounders and cricketers bar Bradman. He's a top 4 or 5 batsman of all time that merits inclusion on that alone, ended his career as a top 10 wicket taker and was a top 3 or 5 bowler during parts of his career, with unmatched versatility, and a top 5 slip all time.

I haven't read what came after, but I wonder if you coped any flak for the order of auxiliary skills you referenced, as I would have.

 

[kyear2]

This is a great side. Exactly my bowling attack as well.

The issue is that you don't need to pick players on fielding. People van be TRAINED for the slips. Countries which have great fielding standards produce great fielders in general including slip fileders. Mark Waugh was amazing at 2nd slip but that's because he was a great catcher in any position. I don't recall from 1992 but Shane Warne likely trained for being the first slip. In general Australian fielding standards would mean that people can be put in most positions and they would still be competent. With extra training for a bit more specialized role like slip fielding or silly mid off/on they can be trained to field well there. Same goes for South Africa that fielding standards in general are high and likely start from school cricket.

So I don't see why anybody would be picking for slip fielding. Especially a person who disregards secondary skills shilling for tertiary skills like fielding as a selection criteria is ridiculous.

This is just ignorance on a elevated level, and proof that some here, thankfully not the majority, base their opinions and views based on their favorite players and not the other way around.

So I guess the reason why Wasim lost out on so many wickets or that Pakistan literally dropped that match and the series to Australia last year was because they didn't train enough?

That's just idiocy. Yes training and practice is required just as it is for batting or bowling, but you can't train a Waugh, Sobers, Hooper, Hammond or any of the greats.

It is considerably easier to train up lower order batsmen to a serviceable label than to turn a Chanderpaul into a Richardson at slip. They're specialist positions, that's why Kohli doesn't get close to chances that Waugh routinely took.

Warne was trained to be in the slips and he wasn't nearly good enough and not nearly as good as Hayden who replaced him during his ban.

You have posted your fair share of nonsense on the forum over the decades in service of Imran, but this one is definitely in contention for the worst.
Not only is it factually incorrect and goes against what every decent pundit, writer, former player or historian would and have ever espoused, it's one sure fire way to lose test matches. And again, all in service to one single player to prove a point.

And the equally idiotic notion that catching is a tertiary skill when it's equally if not (and likely) more important than lower order batting, and a skill by which players have not only been selected, but retained their places in teams based on, is just that...

Simpson earned his selection based on his catching, Sobers retained his, Hooper did as well, and way longer than his batting dictated. So players are selected for test duty based on tertiary duties now?

Everytime Khawaja dropped a catch, Australia lost the match or the opportunity to, in the BGT, didn't he practice enough?

The notion that you can take just anyone and drop them into a slip cordon and they have become elite is like saying you can take anyone and train them to become Tendulkar. It requires patience, instincts, reflexes and soft hands and technique.

If everyone could have been Mark Waugh, everyone would have been. But I get it, it goes against your agenda, so you have to go there.

I've asked you this before.

1984 Windies or 2002 Australia, if given the opportunity, and since it only takes practice, would they trade out their slip cordons to receive Imran & Pollock batting performances in their tail?

Let me be specific, would they sacrifice their elite slip cordons for a higher producing 8 and 9? Increase Marshall's and Holding's batting average but take away their cordon's abilities?

I can without any doubt guarantee you that neither would.

And as usual you can't help but be dishonest, but of course....

I've never disregarded secondary skills, I've said it shouldn't be the basis or selection, the same way I've said for slip fielding. A factor for both yes, bur definitely not the primary basis for selection. But as usual you see it as a personally attack on Imran, somgou.come out firing.

 

[kyear2]

Oh, for sure. It can definitely be improved significantly if consistently worked on but most reasonable cricket systems (that automatically excludes PCB) already have good fielding standards. You require competent fielding to win most games. You don't have a team of 11 Jonty Rhodes. Heck, worst case scenario you can "hide" your worst fielders at mid on or deep cover so that they don't get any catches thrown at them.

Like how you can hide your worst batsmen at 10 and 11?

You can't improve anyone to elite, unless I've missed all the Mark Waugh's out there.

No one has ever said you need 11 Jonty's, but you definitely need at least 2 really good guys in your cordon, and generally a pretty decent standard overall. That's not new.

And for the record, even when one watches the highlights from that last day of the '88 test that you love to being up, the amount of misfields everywhere kinda shows it's really hard to hide poor fielders, even in the outfield.

But on a serious note, I'm not sure if you're actually well, serious, or just as usual trying to be contradictory, but....

A 2 second search on the interwebs.









To minimize the importance of slip fielding is is just wild to me, but your agenda is understood.

 

[Coronis]

Like how you can hide your worst batsmen at 10 and 11?

You can't improve anyone to elite, unless I've missed all the Mark Waugh's out there.

No one has ever said you need 11 Jonty's, but you definitely need at least 2 really good guys in your cordon, and generally a pretty decent standard overall. That's not new.

And for the record, even when one watches the highlights from that last day of the '88 test that you love to being up, the amount of misfields everywhere kinda shows it's really hard to hide poor fielders, even in the outfield.

But on a serious note, I'm not sure if you're actually well, serious, or just as usual trying to be contradictory, but....

A 2 second search on the interwebs.

View attachment 47167View attachment 47168View attachment 47169View attachment 47170

To minimize the importance of slip fielding is is just wild to me, but your agenda is understood.

What the **** is “sealed his place in unadulterated subjectivity” supposed to mean?

What absolute melonhead wrote that?

 

[kyear2]

Why else would you justify batting deep if not for runs scored? It's not lazy at all, it's just the plain simple reason you would do it.

How many runs an innings do you think your bowlers of Marshall, McGrath, Warne & Wasim save compared to my team of Marshall, Hadlee, Warne & Khan? Or more simply McGrath & Wasim vs Hadlee & Khan? Personally I think Wasim & Khan cancel each other out. Hadlee & McGrath are pretty close too, but for your sake lets say McGrath pips Hadlee by getting out the top 7 bats at about 3 runs less per wicket. Which aligns with Ankitj's old post. Hadlee is still scoring on average 20 runs more than McGrath an innings. So unless McGrath is taking 7 wickets compared to Hadlee's 7 the trade off is better to have Hadlee.

Yeah of course, people do have a minimum threshold of what the best bowlers should be in an ATG XI. Botham & Miller don't meet it but it was more of a fun exercise to see how much importance people put on the primary skill of bowling & whether good batting could bridge that gap. I wouldn't choose them as my best 2 bowlers either as you've said the opening bowlers are probably the most important players in the side. Which is why I still have Marshall (number 1 bowler) & Hadlee (number 3 bowler imo), I've got one of the best 2 spinners ever in Warne. And then my 4th bowler/1st change (Imran) is still one of the best ever but I value the trade off that his runs provide over the slightly better ranked bowlers.

If you can find that thread I would be glad to read it.

The difference with my selections are that they end up being the 8th & 9th batter not the 11th. Sure if I was picking Jaques Kallis as my 11th over McGrath for my bowling that would be crazy because I wouldn't be confident at all that with him as the bowling leader we would take 20 wickets.

You'll probably see how I've chosen my batsman later in the thread. I guess when you talk about balancing the primary/auxiliary need that's what I've done with my bowlers. I've made sure to have the best 2 bowlers in their style, my 3rd bowler Hadlee is in the top 3 (can bat decently) & then my 4th is still very good but covers the balance well by being a decent bat as well.

I've used the same approach with my batsman in some sense. I wanted to have Bradman, Tendulkar & Sobers in there no matter what due to their primary skill + what sobers offers as an AR. Then the remaining 3 was decided on that two of them must be top order batsman (Hobbs & Richards) & that hopefully the last is a middle order bat (Smith). I lucked out on Sobers, Viv & Smith being top class fielders. But if Viv & Smith weren't maybe I would reconsider my selections for those final 2 prioritised batsman.

I've answered most of your proposed questions here in other posts, but I'll answer the Hadlee vs McGrath one.

Ambrose and Lillee catches criticisms for playing most of their matches in friendly confines, Hadlee isn't much different and benefitted overall a bit by cashing in on SL.

I also understand the argument with regards to Hadlee and McGrath are close enough in style and substance that just go better bat.

But McGrath was the best bowler of his era, which just happened to be the dead pitch era. So he succeeded in a tougher era and was the man during that time.

He had a significantly higher peer rating that Hadlee ever did. He was clutch and had that knack of getting out the top guy on the opposing team.

He was the most important member of one of the two greatest teams in cricket history and played in countless high pressure contests and proved he knew how to perform and come through in the clutch.

Those are the intangibles that matters to me.

His height, accuracy and bounce is the perfect compliment to Marshalls pace, swing and skiddy bounce.

So despite it coming down to personal preference he's very much my choice, and comfortably so.