Which Test Attack would you prefer (Electric Bogaloo)?

[shortpitched713]

You get to carry one of these attacks for a modern(ish) ATG level Test teams which will face each other (no Bradman). Which do you think would run best? You should consider both the bowling potency and the impact on batting balance that each of these bowling attacks brings.

Learned my lesson from the last thread, so these are all 4 man attacks of high level specialist quality. Should be much closer now, imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

Miller not having the bowling workload to justify that kind of selection role confidently and me not rating Steyn quite as highly as others rules out #3.

And the fact that I'm not even sure Ashwin is better than Kumble or Lyon rules out #2. Just such a massive step down from Murali and Warne.

That leaves #1 by process of elimination, before we even go into how much I love Imran.

 

[Coronis]

Miller not having the bowling workload to justify that kind of selection role confidently and me not rating Steyn quite as highly as others rules out #3.

And the fact that I'm not even sure Ashwin is better than Kumble or Lyon rules out #2. Just such a massive step down from Murali and Warne.

That leaves #1 by process of elimination, before we even go into how much I love Imran.

Eh I’m not sure workload is the correct word there - he bowled 30 plus overs per match, Marshall and Donald just over 35. Sounds about right for first change. I don’t think his skill is up there near his competitors for this particular exercise ofc.

 

[Prince EWS]

Eh I’m not sure workload is the correct word there - he bowled 30 plus overs per match, Marshall and Donald just over 35. Sounds about right for first change. I don’t think his skill is up there near his competitors for this particular exercise ofc.

Nah they were bowling more overs in total then so that's misleading.

Not in a position to calculate it right now but I'm sure he bowled a significantly lower percentage of his team's overs than they did.

He wasn't quite used as a specialist bowler. He wasn't Kallis - he was a gun and more "preserved" than "protected" - but his average definitely would have blown out if the didn't try to preserve him in that way IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd say Miller's average, if used in a more full workload could go up maybe 2 points, as a reasonable guess. A 25 averaging bowler still isn't something to sniff at though, and he's definitely the best batsman of the lot. I think a Miller at 8 (or even 7 if you have a specialist keeper), is better than a Garner or Wasim for value, wouldn't you say?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I would like a combination of Miller/Hadlee/Ambrose/Warne...to rule the world.

 

[kyear2]

Don't know how you came up with these combinations, but they're not remotely comparable. You literally placed all your favorite players in the first team.

 

[kyear2]

I'd say Miller's average, if used in a more full workload could go up maybe 2 points, as a reasonable guess. A 25 averaging bowler still isn't something to sniff at though, and he's definitely the best batsman of the lot. I think a Miller at 8 (or even 7 if you have a specialist keeper), is better than a Garner or Wasim for value, wouldn't you say?

No, like seriously, no.

You don't choose your primary bowling attack based on batting, that makes no sense. Their primary objective is to take wickets and you would compromise that for the hope of runs that may or may not come, in a scenario where they may or may not even be required if the top order does their job.
Miller disqualifies the final option, some of you really do take this bat deep nonsense too far.

 

[kyear2]

Miller not having the bowling workload to justify that kind of selection role confidently and me not rating Steyn quite as highly as others rules out #3.

And the fact that I'm not even sure Ashwin is better than Kumble or Lyon rules out #2. Just such a massive step down from Murali and Warne.

That leaves #1 by process of elimination, before we even go into how much I love Imran.

Yeah, neither Ashwin nor Miller belong in these conversations, not sure Pollock does either.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, neither Ashwin nor Miller belong in these conversations, not sure Pollock does either.

Ashwin is atleast on Pollock's level....

 

[Bolo.]

Ashwin is too big a step down from the other spinners to vote for 2.

1 and 3 are really close in both bowling and batting. Maybe 1 just edges the bowling on the Miller workload + not being as proven across conditions. Replacing him with an inferior player would not help though.

 

[kyear2]

Ashwin is too big a step down from the other spinners to vote for 2.

1 and 3 are really close in both bowling and batting. Maybe 1 just edges the bowling on the Miller workload + not being as proven across conditions. Replacing him with an inferior player would not help though.

Wasim, Garner, Lillee, Lindwall? All better than Miller and Pollock?

 

[Bolo.]

Wasim, Garner, Lillee, Lindwall? All better than Miller and Pollock?

Better bowlers =/= better players. Some of them might be better picks anyway, depending on what the rest of the side looks like, but I don't think anyone on that list has a case for being more than comparable to Pollock or Miller.

 

[Coronis]

You get to carry one of these attacks for a modern(ish) ATG level Test teams which will face each other (no Bradman). Which do you think would run best? You should consider both the bowling potency and the impact on batting balance that each of these bowling attacks brings.

Learned my lesson from the last thread, so these are all 4 man attacks of high level specialist quality. Should be much closer now, imo.

This isn’t how bowling attacks are picked, nor how they’re rated. Its basically a bonus if your attack can bat.

If the top 20 pacers all had McGrathesque batting I’d still be picking 3 of them any day.

 

[kyear2]

Better bowlers =/= better players. Some of them might be better picks anyway, depending on what the rest of the side looks like, but I don't think anyone on that list has a case for being more than comparable to Pollock or Miller.

That's the thing though, your absolute primary job is to bowl out the opposition. That's it, if I was starting a team and had to choose between Pollock and McGrath, there's no doubt that McGrath is the pick. Doesn't matter who else is in the team.

And re Miller, with the bat he averaged 24 in England and 73 in the West Indies, and as a bowler he had a strike rate of over 60. So while in first class cricket he was a specialist bat, and in test cricket he was closer to being an ATG bowler than he was a batsman, he wasn't either.

You pick the better bowlers

 

[Bolo.]

That's the thing though, your absolute primary job is to bowl out the opposition. That's it, if I was starting a team and had to choose between Pollock and McGrath, there's no doubt that McGrath is the pick. Doesn't matter who else is in the team.

And re Miller, with the bat he averaged 24 in England and 73 in the West Indies, and as a bowler he had a strike rate of over 60. So while in first class cricket he was a specialist bat, and in test cricket he was closer to being an ATG bowler than he was a batsman, he wasn't either.

You pick the better bowlers

A team's job is to score runs and take wickets. You pick whatever combo of players maximises both. You don't know what combo works for these teams without seeing the rest of the lineup.

Replacing Miller (and to some extent Pollock) with a specialist leaves a notably worse batting lineup than the other team without a correspondingly clear bowling advantage.

 

[kyear2]

A team's job is to score runs and take wickets. You pick whatever combo of players maximises both. You don't know what combo works for these teams without seeing the rest of the lineup.

Replacing Miller (and to some extent Pollock) with a specialist leaves a notably worse batting lineup than the other team without a correspondingly clear bowling advantage.

You can get one ATG player to start a team, McGrath or Pollock, which are you going with?

 

[kyear2]

A team's job is to score runs and take wickets. You pick whatever combo of players maximises both. You don't know what combo works for these teams without seeing the rest of the lineup.

Replacing Miller (and to some extent Pollock) with a specialist leaves a notably worse batting lineup than the other team without a correspondingly clear bowling advantage.

Yes, the batsmen bat, that's their job, the bowlers job's are to get wickets. As Coronis said, if you can find two equal bowlers and one is a better batsmen, then sure, that's a bonus. But you don't sacrifice your bowling strength for a better bat than on average might give you 10 more runs, that's just ridiculous. Pollock wasn't a better bowler than Lillee, Garner or Lindwall, and Miller isn't even in the conversation.

And note, I'm not the only one who've said this in just the few responses here, he practically eliminates the 3rd team as an option. And why, for batting?

 

[Bolo.]

You can get one ATG player to start a team, McGrath or Pollock, which are you going with?

Depends on the team and what weakness you want to cover. 2000s India it's Mcgrath and current RSA it's Pollock, and neither are particularly close calls.

Not really relevant though- Mcgrath (and all the other top tiers) are already picked.

Yes, it's worth sacrificing some bowling strength to batting. Otherwise why not just pick your 10 best bowlers? The idea that the compromise should come in at 4 or 5 best bowlers comes from the idea that they are likely significantly better. This isn't always the case.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You can get one ATG player to start a team, McGrath or Pollock, which are you going with?

Depending on conditions and team balance, I will probably most of the times take Hadlee before McGrath.