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

[Cipher]

Yeah, If your rest of the bowling attack is elite, you can pick Jadeja too. But in most cases, I'll go with Ashwin.

Agree with Luffy you can pick either. Murali would be my other spinner in Asia so I might like a bit more batting with Jadeja there & there's less of a need to get bags of wickets with Murali around. Also it feels wrong to leave Jadeja out when he's posting ATG All rounder numbers in Asia. If its a draft scenario where Murali is already taken I would go for Ashwin though. I feel you do need 1 golden arm bowling leader in your lineup.

 

[Cipher]

But when teams are evenly matched, you also want your absolute best bowlers to take those 20 wickets.

I know, that's what makes a bat deep selection fun to discuss! It's a shame an ex-player hasn't gone a bit maverick trying it on a cricket show for a laugh, would like to see Boycott's reaction to it: most likely involving the word rubbish.

Fair point, I forgot about the umpiring in that first series in NZ.
Nevertheless, he averaged 22.83 in the West Indies which is still plenty more than what other bowlers would hope to get.

This is probably because stat guru is quick and easy to access, personally I haven't spent enough time doing deep reading about ex players or matches that happened 40 years ago. But I understand what you're saying, stats can be misleading.

Agreed on Imran's average being inflated, he did have a significant amount of not outs
But he is still a good batsman, he's scored 6 centuries & 18 50's which shows he can deliver runs.

Sadly I am not old enough to have seen Marshall play but I have watched Warne bat.
I am not discounting those two couldn't bat (I feel Warne could have had a higher average if he had more discipline) but Imran & Hadlee are better batsman than both of them.

Again that's totally fair that you'd want the best bowlers to make the difference rather than deeper batting, I'd just like to see someone give evidence why that is the better choice not just because that's conventional wisdom or that's how it's always been done.
If Glen McGrath is much more likely to get ATG bats out & for much less runs than Khan, Miller or Hadlee absolutely I would take him.
But currently I'm unaware of what that difference in runs/chance creation would actually be hence the post.

 

[Cipher]

This is a case of having the resources to win despite not having a 5th.

WI are actually a good example of why you need a 5th. They very frequently were not able to play their 1st choice attack due to injuries. Although regularly playing a spinner who bolwed a lot would have had similar results to a 5th.

Yep quite true, that's the benefit of having several amazing pace bowlers to call upon.
If you knew that you could get away with bowling just 4 bowlers in a day & not lose any effectiveness with them, that gives you another specialist batsman to have in the side (not good for load management of course).
I'd be interested to see what difference it makes to have a 5th/6th bowler to let your main 4 remain fresh or bowl faster spells when it's their turn.

 

[Cipher]

He was my boyhood hero and remains so today.

Miller would have been a great bloke to play cricket with, I remember Richie named him 12th man in his best XI.
Indeed very few ever perform with bat & ball at the same time & when it does happen boy is it special.
Sobers in England, Botham's Ashes, Flintoff in 2005. Herculean stuff.
Imran could have achieved 250 runs/20 wickets in a series twice. Just 3 runs short against India in 1982/83
and against England in 1982 he took 21 wickets & scored 212 runs from just 3 matches. He would have done it had it been a 5 match series.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah, If your rest of the bowling attack is elite, you can pick Jadeja too. But in most cases, I'll go with Ashwin.

If the bowling attack is elite, I'm taking none.
If it's not, Ashwin.

 

[Coronis]

I know, that's what makes a bat deep selection fun to discuss! It's a shame an ex-player hasn't gone a bit maverick trying it on a cricket show for a laugh, would like to see Boycott's reaction to it: most likely involving the word rubbish.

Fair point, I forgot about the umpiring in that first series in NZ.
Nevertheless, he averaged 22.83 in the West Indies which is still plenty more than what other bowlers would hope to get.

This is probably because stat guru is quick and easy to access, personally I haven't spent enough time doing deep reading about ex players or matches that happened 40 years ago. But I understand what you're saying, stats can be misleading.

Agreed on Imran's average being inflated, he did have a significant amount of not outs
But he is still a good batsman, he's scored 6 centuries & 18 50's which shows he can deliver runs.

Sadly I am not old enough to have seen Marshall play but I have watched Warne bat.
I am not discounting those two couldn't bat (I feel Warne could have had a higher average if he had more discipline) but Imran & Hadlee are better batsman than both of them.

Again that's totally fair that you'd want the best bowlers to make the difference rather than deeper batting, I'd just like to see someone give evidence why that is the better choice not just because that's conventional wisdom or that's how it's always been done.
If Glen McGrath is much more likely to get ATG bats out & for much less runs than Khan, Miller or Hadlee absolutely I would take him.
But currently I'm unaware of what that difference in runs/chance creation would actually be hence the post.

Feels like this is an impossible thing to try and quantify because some bowlers faced ATG batsmen frequently, some would not have.

 

[Thala_0710]

If the bowling attack is elite, I'm taking none.
If it's not, Ashwin.

But Bangladesh would pick both, even the current version.

 

[Cipher]

If the bowling attack is elite, I'm taking none.
If it's not, Ashwin.

No Ashwin or Jadeja in Asia
Who are your two spinners then? Murali and?

 

[Cipher]

Feels like this is an impossible thing to try and quantify because some bowlers faced ATG batsmen frequently, some would not have.

Yeah the analysis would be difficult. Only a few games against a top player makes it hard to quantify. Off the top of my head just looking at wicket records of which batsman a bowler regularly got out/what their average score was does help paint a picture somewhat.
McGrath dismissing guys like Lara, Tendulkar, Graeme Smith & Younis Khan at a good match/dismissal rate certainly highlights he is a giant killer in my mind. I'm inclined to believe in McGrath & Lillee's case their low batting averages wouldn't matter due to how well they bowled against skilled batsman. Although perhaps for bowlers like Akram who specialised in cleaning up tailenders, it may be better going for someone like Imran Khan due to better batting performance/no loss in bowling performance against the specialist batsmen.

 

[shortpitched713]

No Ashwin or Jadeja in Asia
Who are your two spinners then? Murali and?

Murali and smoking the reefer.

 

[shortpitched713]

The issue I have with this is that it's like we all believe that we've discovered the new world somehow. None of us have literally ever seen an AT World XI constructed by former players, pundits, historians, journalists that included a bat deep strategy. Cricinfo, Wisden, Gower, Willis, Crowe, Boycott, none of those selections ever got close to bat deep, but rather the associated discussions were on which bowlers were best suited to lead an attack.

First of all, there's significant context to Hadlee's batting average vs the WI, specially at home. I'll leave you to look into it.

A somewhat large problem that I've noticed on the forum is that everyone resorts to stat guru rather than reading, even sometimes the same match reports of articles and books.

Imran's batting for was also exceptionally inflated, when you look at his numbers for the period we also look at his bowling, his rpi is around 27, away from home that dropped to 25. His production never touched his averages.

But all of that aside, have you ever watched Marshall or Warne bat? Particularly the former? He's not Imran or even Hadlee, but they were both capable and saved and even won matches for their teams with the bat when required.

They played for stronger teams and didn't bat on, pile on runs or down hill ski, with their m.o often being quick runs and get the opposition back in. But they were both capable and when required they often stood up, as we saw Cummins in the last series he played in.

And re your last paragraph, Subz would love you.

But when teams are evenly matched, you also want your absolute best bowlers to take those 20 wickets.

Mate, you're way overemphasizing the difference between a bunch of ATG bowlers. When they're on a heater, any one of them runs through a side. All of them altered the history of the game with their mastery of the ball. So yeah, on a given match/innings one side or the other could get a big advantage on a red hot bowler.

But you know what, there will also be close games. And nothing is more annoying (and by definition game deciding) in a close game than a tail that just decides it's going to stick around and make your team's life miserable. That's what people see the opportunity of being able to construct (with very little cost) with the lineup of players that they see available in the history of cricket.

Of course, ATG XIs are supposed to be about not just winning, but a representation of excellence in the game. You don't do that without a McGrath or Murali, for instance as they were the pinnacles of their primary discipline, regardless of batting weakness. And you're right, no one constructs teams looking at tail end batting as a big selling point. But having the entirety of cricket history as your shopping catalog, isn't a normal selection challenge your average or even great Test team really gets.

 

[Line and Length]

Mate, you're way overemphasizing the difference between a bunch of ATG bowlers. When they're on a heater, any one of them runs through a side. All of them altered the history of the game with their mastery of the ball. So yeah, on a given match/innings one side or the other could get a big advantage on a red hot bowler.

But you know what, there will also be close games. And nothing is more annoying (and by definition game deciding) in a close game than a tail that just decides it's going to stick around and make your team's life miserable. That's what people see the opportunity of being able to construct (with very little cost) with the lineup of players that they see available in the history of cricket.

Of course, ATG XIs are supposed to be about not just winning, but a representation of excellence in the game. You don't do that without a McGrath or Murali, for instance as they were the pinnacles of their primary discipline, regardless of batting weakness. And you're right, no one constructs teams looking at tail end batting as a big selling point. But having the entirety of cricket history as your shopping catalog, isn't a normal selection challenge your average or even great Test team really gets.

The section I have highlighted is very true. Just looking at Ashes series, lesser lights such as Massie, Willis and Broad have all had days when they were 'on song' and produced incredible figures. What sets the ATGs above them is consistency.

 

[Coronis]

The section I have highlighted is very true. Just looking at Ashes series, lesser lights such as Massie, Willis and Broad have all had days when they were 'on song' and produced incredible figures. What sets the ATGs above them is consistency.

Never forget Alderman

 

[kyear2]

I'm not sure I agree with Hadlee being easily better than Imran. He was better but Imran still had phenomenal performances with the ball, the ICC all time bowling form rankings sit Imran at 3rd. I would agree that bowlers like Marshall, Lillee & Hadlee had more tools in their arsenal to adapt to conditions but from the numbers this didn't seem to matter with Imran's performances. If your Plan A is good enough do you need to change? Especially when I can take them out of the attack for someone else in an all time XI if it's not working.

I have Marshall higher than Paddles myself too but that's comparing him to the best bowler in history & Lillee is another potential AT top 5 bowler so it's not a huge issue. To put it another way if Marshall & Lillee are 10 out of 10 bowlers, Hadlee is a 9.5 & Imran is a 9.
But with batting Hadlee is a 5/10 Bat & Imran a 6/10. Marshall is a 3/10 & Lillee a 1.5/10. Is that extra 0.5 in bowling worth the trade in batting?

Most, and yes I say most, of Imran's spectacular performances with the ball, and note I didn't say all.... But most of them, and especially at home, were heavily influenced by "home advantages". You should take a look at his home and away numbers during his bowling career, namely '74 to '88, the disparity is a little shocking.

So when I say that Hadlee is easier better than Imran, yes, I don't think anyone here challenges that.

Not my rankings are different than most l, but for me it's.

Marshall | McGrath

Hadlee | Warne | Steyn | Murali | Ambrose

Imran | Donald | Lillee | Wasim |

Not that's just me, and everyone sees it differently. But even here, he's generally ranked 8th.

Regardless of how close some perceive it to be, why are you selecting the 8th best bowler of all time. If he couldn't bat, would he even be a consideration.

Oh, and if Bradman is a 10, Hobbs etc a 9, Lara, Smith etc a 8, how is Imran a 6?

He's a 4 / 10, Hadlee probably a 3, and I would also suggest you go through their collective innings, and tell me how many were actual match winning efforts.

Again, just my opinion, but if I have two bowlers alone in my top tier, or even 3 as mist have here, they are making the team.

 

[smash84]

So when I say that Hadlee is easier better than Imran, yes, I don't think anyone here challenges that.

That guy literally challenged you on that

 

[kyear2]

That's fair, I agree with him that if you have 4 ATG bowlers your 5th bowler won't matter as much considering that the 80's windies side & australia's early 2000's didn't use a great 5th bowler (although Sobers is still a very handy option to have).

And the opening bowling pair are vital for sure, that's why I suggested great bowlers who can bat rather than someone like Kallis & Sobers opening the bowling. I would still have Marshall in my side because of his bowling ability & he can still bat a bit. The same goes for Warne, they aren't big trade offs batting wise.

For me its the question of the 2nd & 3rd pace bowler, can you skimp a fraction of bowling quality for better batting? If you think no for the opening bowlers, then Marshall & McGrath it is. But having a Khan/Miller/Hadlee/Peak Botham as your 3rd pacer (number 8 bat) could have its uses.
I guess that's why you've changed Akram to Hadlee hey?

Ok, your first paragraph, if you have 4 ATG bowlers your 5th matters less, doesn't that same argument extends to if you have 6 ATG batsmen and a great in Gilchrist at 7, does having your 8 through 11 matter? Or should you, like the top 6, focus on the batting?

Miller and Botham are off the table, they aren't even in the discussion.

And I'm not saying Hadlee isn't a viable option, for me it's a discussion between him and Wasim and the only reason I go Wasim is primarily because Wasim was the best ever old ball bowler and also a guy that's a match winner and someone that has a ridiculous peer rating. Hadlee is right up there.

Imran also isn't a ridiculous choice, it's just not mine, or for the most part, the forum's. Because at some point you have to balance the skills that's required and what your primary job is.

That's it.

I haven't changed Wasim to Hadlee, not sure what you're referencing.

 

[kyear2]

In Asian conditions:
Ashwin: 74 mat 433 wkts @21.76 and 2329 runs @26.77 avg
Jadeja: 51 mat 251 wkts @21.12 and 2108 runs @38.32 avg
Does Ashwin's higher quality of bowling (reflected mainly by WPM and not even avg) make up for the 12 point gap in average + great fielding?
I reckon most will take Ashwin still. I definitely take Ashwin because I just pick the best bowlers first.

Little surprised by this, but yeah.

Easily makes sense

 

[kyear2]

Of course Hadlee is not easily better than Imran. All the top fast bowlers are fairly close to each other.

Just know who you are arguing against especially when talking about Imran. You won't be making much headway with a poster who's been trying to bring him down for more than a decade.

Yup, yet I rate him the exact same place the forum does as a bowler.

Rate him as the 10th best cricketer of all time and he resides in my 2nd AT XI.

****, I really hate the dude.

But yes, I do rank him below where you do at 2nd all time, and I don't ignore the ball tampering, umpiring help and inflated batting average. My apologies.

 

[smash84]

****, I really hate the dude.

Thanks for confirming

 

[kyear2]

As you yourself said earlier in this thread re: Cummins, Warne and Marshall, they’ve actually bailed out their team multiple times when bats have failed (including ATGs in their lineups).

No, they’re not consistently going to perform but you want to give yourself the best chance in case it does become necessary. (and with presumably facing an ATG attack, a collapse will probably happen from time to time)

Another thing you probably want to take into consideration, in reality, the gaps between these top pacers are far smaller than we perceive and even on here many many people view gaps between certain players as much smaller than you do. Can you understand from that perspective why they would go for the better batsman in that case?

I think that lower order batting is certainly a factor to consider when selecting these teams, because you want the absolute best balance possible.

I also think that for instance my team and yours both address that while maintaining the integrity of selecting the best bowlers.

You have Hadlee, I have Wasim to pair with Marshall and Warne. It is really necessary to go further than that and to dictate that our opening bowler, and no. 11 batsman also be selected based more on his batting than bowling?

Are you dropping McGrath for Imran, because that's literally what it comes down to.

Does that also make sense?

Despite how small the perceived margins might be in stats, I want the guys who I think is best suited on all surfaces, in all conditions to win me matches. I believe that you do the same.

Now, I believe that auxiliary skills are important, but it's also factors in more for tie breakers.

Now I've said this before, including Imran is a direct equivalent to including a Hammond over Sachin. Not a top 5 performer, but in the lower part of the top 10, but he gives you the GOAT at 1st slip, and a useful backup for Sobers who got out Bradman a couple times.
But none of the proponents of Imran (the best batting option at 8), would advocate for Hammond (the best 1st slip ever) over Sachin, because you have to choose the better specialist all of a sudden, despite the much greater utility than Hammond provides.

It's