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

[Coronis]

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.

Again, this is the case for you, others rate people higher/closer together. So yeah.

 

[Johan]

Hammond and Sachin are already close on primary, surely Hammond's secondary and tertiary pushes him above.

 

[kyear2]

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

Well one thing we can quantify is who took a higher amount of top order wickets or even look at the value of said wickets.

Believe there's a thread around here somewhere that speaks to that.

 

[kyear2]

Hammond and Sachin are already close on primary, surely Hammond's secondary and tertiary pushes him above.

If one is being consistent on auxiliary skills, he pushes him way ahead.

 

[Johan]

If one is being consistent on auxiliary skills, he pushes him way ahead.

have noticed this concept of secondary/tertiary carrying you afar is very much present with bowling all rounders (Imran, Ashwin) but very much absent with the batting all rounders (Worrell, Hammond, Dexter).

 

[sayon basak]

have noticed this concept of secondary/tertiary carrying you afar is very much present with bowling all rounders (Imran, Ashwin) but very much absent with the batting all rounders (Worrell, Hammond, Dexter).

Worrell is rated fairly higher than Weekes/Walcott as a cricketer. Dexter, I feel, is a Pietersen level batter, but is rated significantly higher overall. I rate Hammond ahead of Hutton for his secondary and tertiary disciplines. Imran is rated higher, because he's a top tier ATG on his primary alone.

And, Kallis literally won a poll against SRT here on CW, which contradicts your claim.

 

[Johan]

Worrell is rated fairly higher than Weekes/Walcott as a cricketer. Dexter, I feel, is a Pietersen level batter, but is rated significantly higher overall. I rate Hammond ahead of Hutton for his secondary and tertiary discipline.

And, Kallis literally won a poll against SRT here on CW, which contradicts your claim.

meant from things that extend beyond this site, generally people like Imran/Hadlee regardless of their bowling brilliance are termed all rounders while I won't say the same concept applies with people like Hammond and Worrell, especially the prior whose bowling is barely mentioned in comparison to the batting abilities of the 1980s guys.

 

[sayon basak]

meant from things that extend beyond this site, generally people like Imran/Hadlee regardless of their bowling brilliance are termed all rounders while I won't say the same concept applies with people like Hammond and Worrell, especially the prior whose bowling is barely mentioned in comparison to the batting abilities of the 1980s guys.

Don't try to make sense of the general people's rankings.

 

[kyear2]

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.

What I find somewhat somewhat amusing is that there's always the statement that all of the top bowlers are pretty much interchangeable and really close, but somehow this isn't the case of the people who actually watched or played against them.

Not only that, it's definitely not the case when it comes to batsmen around here, where suddenly there's a clear distinction between the top guys.

You mention nothing more infuriating that the tail sticking in and scoring runs at an inopportune time, but what's more deflating for a team than dropped chances. When Australia dropped chances in the recent BGT, they either lost the game outright or lost the ability to win it. It was definitive and determinative.

But there's a created ethos on this forum around bowling all rounders to the point that there's apparently nothing more important than lower order batting, not even the primary job of bowling that accompanies it. So they are more important than batting all rounders because bowling is more important than batting, but that doesn't apply when speaking of the pure bowlers against the pure batsmen, because then the batters are better and more important. And yes, its inconsistent as hell, and that's because it isn't based on any level of consistency but on the names of the personalities that are favored.

And I can guarantee you that not only is catching just as important as lower order batting, and factors more into team selection, but that there's never been a captain that's sat down and made batting a consideration for his bowlers, especially not past no. 8 and certainly not for his opening pair. If the next couple of years go well, I'll have zero issues with an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah and Warne. Because I'll be confident that they would be the best 4 to take the most wickets for the least amount of runs and do it anywhere.

In any event, there's two ways to construct an AT team. One, a representation of greatness and an acknowledgement of accomplishments, and two, how to build the ultimate XI that would be successful in an one off test match or series, because that's what teams are generally built to do.

When I first started reading the Cricinfo lead up to the world XI, and the discussions and attention it garnered and encouraged, it was about balance, and who complimented whom, and which team would win. It spoke to balance of anchors and accelerators, it asked why would one choose 3 opening bowlers when only two get the new ball, who would field in the slips, and who would lead, and that's how I do it. Who's the perfect collection of gentlemen, who represent and has not only everything, but guys who played the game the right way, could perform and win everywhere, and where every base is covered. And it's damn fun.

 

[Cipher]

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.

Certainly he was a stronger bowler at home helped by patriotic umpires & apparent ball tampering.
I think you're selling him short with his away performances. In his bowling peak from 1980 -1988 he was still averaging 21.17 @ 5.13 WPM in away matches. This isn't as good an average as Hadlee (18!) Garner (19.72 underrated) or Marshall (20.27) in the same period but those numbers still put him very high amongst all time bowlers. In comparison Wasim Akram's peak from 1990-97 averaged 21.72 @ 5.18 WPM in away matches of which you selected in your side. Khan also didn't average 30 or more with his bowling in any country, but Glenn McGrath did in Pakistan.

Of course I agree that McGrath & Hadlee are better bowlers than Khan & would rank the best bowlers similarly to you but the gap between the 3 tiers of bowlers here isn't of an easily better difference. Plenty of people would pick Akram over someone like Steyn or argue that Hadlee was better than McGrath. When I think of easily better differences I think of someone like Josh Hazlewood vs Glenn McGrath (a good bowler vs a great one) not an ATG vs an ATG. Or I would think of Glen McGrath's batting in comparison to Imran Khan's.

The whole discussion has been about the value of their batting in addition to their bowling, of course I wouldn't pick him over McGrath if he couldn't bat.

Fair enough with the batting rankings, I was thinking of Imran at his batting peak when he was able to bat at number 6. Even still they are better batsman than specialist bowlers. I'm not going to bother going through every collective innings to find match winning efforts when that was your original point raised with Warne & Marshall, you are welcome to if you wish.
Rather I'll save time for both of us & put it this way: your team needs 50 runs to win & you've got Warne & Marshall batting or you have Imran & Hadlee batting. 100% you would rather have Hadlee & Imran trying to win the match because they're simply better quality batsman.

 

[Coronis]

And I can guarantee you that not only is catching just as important as lower order batting, and factors more into team selection, but that there's never been a captain that's sat down and made batting a consideration for his bowlers, especially not past no. 8 and certainly not for his opening pair. If the next couple of years go well, I'll have zero issues with an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah and Warne. Because I'll be confident that they would be the best 4 to take the most wickets for the least amount of runs and do it anywhere.

Funnily enough, most selectors don’t have this dilemma because they don’t have multiple bowlers around the same level. Which is not the case here.

 

[Cipher]

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.

As I said earlier, everyone bats but not everyone bowls.
My personal belief is that with a star studded bowling lineup an ATG batting lineup will still get bowled out.
So in those cases the total runs you make by your entire XI matter a lot.
Does your 8-11th bowler who probably doesn't even get an over in an ATG side matter at all?

Miller & Botham were great bowlers in their prime but you do you.

Of course, having great bowlers in the lineup is important.
I feel like we're going around in circles with this, the bowling all rounders I've chosen have a great primary skill in bowling.
The fact that they can bat as well creates an even stronger side batting wise for an arguable drop in bowling quality (how much that is depends on your point of view).

I'll put it another way: Can you explain to me how much of a difference choosing McGrath & Akram (your bowlers) would have over Khan & Hadlee (my bowlers) in regards to results if we have the same top 7 batsman? Do you think the bowling quality of those players would make up for the difference in batting quality?

 

[capt_Luffy]

As I said earlier, everyone bats but not everyone bowls.
My personal belief is that with a star studded bowling lineup an ATG batting lineup will still get bowled out.
So in those cases the total runs you make by your entire XI matter a lot.
Does your 8-11th bowler who probably doesn't even get an over in an ATG side matter at all?

Miller & Botham were great bowlers in their prime but you do you.

Of course, having great bowlers in the lineup is important.
I feel like we're going around in circles with this, the bowling all rounders I've chosen have a great primary skill in bowling.
The fact that they can bat as well creates an even stronger side batting wise for an arguable drop in bowling quality (how much that is depends on your point of view).

I'll put it another way: Can you explain to me how much of a difference choosing McGrath & Akram (your bowlers) would have over Khan & Hadlee (my bowlers) in regards to results if we have the same top 7 batsman? Do you think the bowling quality of those players would make up for the difference in batting quality?

This. So much This. You sure you aren't a multi of mine??

 

[kyear2]

have noticed this concept of secondary/tertiary carrying you afar is very much present with bowling all rounders (Imran, Ashwin) but very much absent with the batting all rounders (Worrell, Hammond, Dexter).

Auxiliary skills here only apply for bowlers, again a built in bias.

There's a level of angst and disagreement when I rate McGrath over Hadlee because Hadlee could bat better than McGrath. But no one says Viv was one of the greatest fielders ever and an AT at slip so he's ahead of Sachin.

More pertinently. Imran here is consistently over years ranked as the 8th best bowler, but he's then rated by some as the 3rd best cricketer.

Yet Hammond and Chappell, who are similarly ranked as batsmen and legitimate AT slip fielders, don't get nearly the bump, if any at all, despite Hammond also being a handy enough bowler, that he's dismissed the GOAT a few times. Same for Punter.

There's a disconnect and a fair bit of inconsistency if not hypocrisy.

Either that or the idiot gene where some declare that a Pant is a better wk bat than Knott because he can bat better, has fully kicked in and taken hold of this generation.

There's a video of Boycott selecting an AT English XI where he's prioritizing a mixture of anchors with those who can provide impetus to the batting, an all rounder, a keeper who can preferably bat, attacking bowlers who can take 20 wickets, and slip fielders to assist with taking wickets.

Swanton in '91 selected his all time side, he prioritized attacking potential with the bat, variety with the ball and fielding prowess.

@peterhrt referenced some time ago a contemporary XI from 1975 with some of the most established writers of the day, see if you can pick up which skills were mentioned and which weren't

In June 1975 five leading English cricket writers got together to select a current World XI for The Daily Telegraph Magazine. They were EW Swanton, John Woodcock, Ian Peebles, Michael Melford and Crawford White. In addition to the Telegraph, The Times, Sunday Times and Daily Express were represented. It is a snapshot of thinking at the time, at least in England.

Six names were agreed by all five judges: Barry Richards ("unanimously accepted finest opening batsman in the world"), Clive Lloyd, Greg Chappell, Knott, Lillee and Bedi.

Procter would have been another but was not fully fit. Sobers was also mentioned but not due to play any first-class cricket that summer. The judges still wanted an all-rounder and picked Greig.

Melford favoured Roberts over Thomson as he bowled a fuller length. Peebles, White and Swanton liked fast bowlers hunting in pairs and went for Thomson to partner Lillee. Rather than select all three, the writers preferred a wrist spinner for variety and chose Chandra as the best "on his day".

Boycott was deemed to have ruled himself out by opting out of Test cricket. Instead "Barlow's credentials as dangerous outswing bowler, high-class bat, excellent slipper, and, not least, highly pugnacious competitor, won him the place at Richards's side." The South Africans were still regarded as the equivalent of Test cricketers in the mid-1970s. Boycott wasn't, even though he had appeared much more recently.

Before deciding on the remaining batsman, the judges took a look at the fielding which was already well covered with Barlow, Chappell, Greig and Richards in close and Lloyd great anywhere. They considered Graeme Pollock, Walters, Asif Iqbal and Kallicharran. Also Fredericks and Redpath as possible openers with Barlow dropping down to number three. In the end they went for Kallicharran, helped by his left-handedness. Asif was twelfth man and substitute fielder. Lloyd was captain.

Despite Swanton's Kent connections, there was no mention of Underwood. Nor Gavaskar.

Team: Barry Richards, Barlow, Kallicharran, Greg Chappell, LLoyd*, Greig, Knott+, Lillee, Thomson, Bedi, Chandrasekhar. 12th man: Asif Iqbal.

It's clear what is and isn't seen as primary factors in selections.

The notion that bowlers are to be chosen based on batting, or that batsmen are chosen in a vacuum without thinking of their auxiliary skills is again, a notion created and nurtured purely here.

More recent examples like the Cricinfo and Wisden exercises had similar philosophies, similarly former players like Gower, Crowe, Boycott etc.... It's basically something that spreadsheet enthusiasts and statisticians have conjured up in recent times.

And not saying that Imran isn't an option for an AT XI, or shouldn't be. Subz's contention that he's top 5, and the best reverse swinger, makes his choice along with Marshall and McGrath, a balanced one and still one based on bowling, but you're going to say that your entire bowling line is solely predicated how they bat, you've lost the plot.

 

[Coronis]

Auxiliary skills here only apply for bowlers, again a built in bias.

There's a level of angst and disagreement when I rate McGrath over Hadlee because Hadlee could bat better than McGrath. But no one says Viv was one of the greatest fielders ever and an AT at slip so he's ahead of Sachin.

More pertinently. Imran here is consistently over years ranked as the 8th best bowler, but he's then rated by some as the 3rd best cricketer.

Yet Hammond and Chappell, who are similarly ranked as batsmen and legitimate AT slip fielders, don't get nearly the bump, if any at all, despite Hammond also being a handy enough bowler, that he's dismissed the GOAT a few times. Same for Punter.

There's a disconnect and a fair bit of inconsistency if not hypocrisy.

Either that or the idiot gene where some declare that a Pant is a better wk bat than Knott because he can bat better, has fully kicked in and taken hold of this generation.

There's a video of Boycott selecting an AT English XI where he's prioritizing a mixture of anchors with those who can provide impetus to the batting, an all rounder, a keeper who can preferably bat, attacking bowlers who can take 20 wickets, and slip fielders to assist with taking wickets.

Swanton in '91 selected his all time side, he prioritized attacking potential with the bat, variety with the ball and fielding prowess.

@peterhrt referenced some time ago a contemporary XI from 1975 with some of the most established writers of the day, see if you can pick up which skills were mentioned and which weren't



It's clear what is and isn't seen as primary factors in selections.

The notion that bowlers are to be chosen based on batting, or that batsmen are chosen in a vacuum without thinking of their auxiliary skills is again, a notion created and nurtured purely here.

More recent examples like the Cricinfo and Wisden exercises had similar philosophies, similarly former players like Gower, Crowe, Boycott etc.... It's basically something that spreadsheet enthusiasts and statisticians have conjured up in recent times.

And not saying that Imran isn't an option for an AT XI, or shouldn't be. Subz's contention that he's top 5, and the best reverse swinger, makes his choice along with Marshall and McGrath, a balanced one and still one based on bowling, but you're going to say that your entire bowling line is solely predicated how they bat, you've lost the plot.

You know who gets underrated as a fieldsman?

 

[Cipher]

Well one thing we can quantify is who took a higher amount of top order wickets or even look at the value of said wickets.

Believe there's a thread around here somewhere that speaks to that.

Is this the one you were talking about?

Top order (1-7) wickets percentage of great Test bowlers

Vaas 274/355 - 77.2% Anderson 387/514 - 75.3% McGrath 421/563 - 74.8% Donald 244/330 - 73.9% Marshall 277/376 - 73.7% Ambrose 293/405 - 72.3% Lillee 258/355 - 72.1% Imran 258/362 - 71.3% Waqar 264/373 - 70.8% Pollock 297/421 - 70.5% Hadlee 302/431 - 70.1% Walsh 356/519 - 68.6% Trueman 210/307 -...

www.cricketweb.net

Vaas 274/355 - 77.2%
Anderson 387/514 - 75.3%
McGrath 421/563 - 74.8%
Donald 244/330 - 73.9%
Marshall 277/376 - 73.7%
Ambrose 293/405 - 72.3%
Lillee 258/355 - 72.1%
Imran 258/362 - 71.3%
Waqar 264/373 - 70.8%
Pollock 297/421 - 70.5%
Hadlee 302/431 - 70.1%
Walsh 356/519 - 68.6%
Trueman 210/307 - 68.4%
Steyn 285/417 - 68.3%
Herath 275/406 - 67.7%
Murali 540/800 - 67.5%
Kumble 418/619 - 67.5%
Ashwin 205/304 - 67.4%
Wasim 269/414 - 65%
Warne 445/708 - 62.9%

 

[The Sean]

On the above metric, Keith Miller is 77.6%.

I like Keith Miller.

 

[Coronis]

Is this the one you were talking about?

Top order (1-7) wickets percentage of great Test bowlers

Vaas 274/355 - 77.2% Anderson 387/514 - 75.3% McGrath 421/563 - 74.8% Donald 244/330 - 73.9% Marshall 277/376 - 73.7% Ambrose 293/405 - 72.3% Lillee 258/355 - 72.1% Imran 258/362 - 71.3% Waqar 264/373 - 70.8% Pollock 297/421 - 70.5% Hadlee 302/431 - 70.1% Walsh 356/519 - 68.6% Trueman 210/307 -...

www.cricketweb.net

Vaas 274/355 - 77.2%
Anderson 387/514 - 75.3%
McGrath 421/563 - 74.8%
Donald 244/330 - 73.9%
Marshall 277/376 - 73.7%
Ambrose 293/405 - 72.3%
Lillee 258/355 - 72.1%
Imran 258/362 - 71.3%
Waqar 264/373 - 70.8%
Pollock 297/421 - 70.5%
Hadlee 302/431 - 70.1%
Walsh 356/519 - 68.6%
Trueman 210/307 - 68.4%
Steyn 285/417 - 68.3%
Herath 275/406 - 67.7%
Murali 540/800 - 67.5%
Kumble 418/619 - 67.5%
Ashwin 205/304 - 67.4%
Wasim 269/414 - 65%
Warne 445/708 - 62.9%

Confirmed Vaas is the best.

Ponting 6 times 11 matches
Inzamam 5 times 16 matches
Flower 5 times 13 matches
Langer 5 times 8 matches
Hayden 4 times 6 matches
M.Waugh 4 times 6 matches
Dravid 3 times 14 matches
Tendulkar 3 times 11 matches
Kallis 3 times 10 matches
Younis 3 times 10 matches
Chanderpaul 3 times 4 matches

Best batsmen he never dismissed (min 5 matches)
Gilchrist 0 times 6 matches
S.Waugh 0 times 5 matches

 

[shortpitched713]

Not only that, it's definitely not the case when it comes to batsmen around here, where suddenly there's a clear distinction between the top guys.

But there's a created ethos on this forum around bowling all rounders to the point that there's apparently nothing more important than lower order batting, not even the primary job of bowling that accompanies it.

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.

 

[kyear2]

meant from things that extend beyond this site, generally people like Imran/Hadlee regardless of their bowling brilliance are termed all rounders while I won't say the same concept applies with people like Hammond and Worrell, especially the prior whose bowling is barely mentioned in comparison to the batting abilities of the 1980s guys.

Outside of CW, where do you see Hadlee rated highly for his batting though? Serous question.

AT XI's he's mostly absenst and makes 2nd or 3rd teams. And all the lists that we were going through recently, he literally doesn't make any top 10's and I don't think 20's.

Again, think the bowling all rounder massiah thing is basically just here.