Which Test Attack would you prefer (Electric Bogaloo)?

[kyear2]

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

I'm not talking Hadlee or McGrath, that's two similar talents and styles where the batting could be a tie breaker (though personally I still prefer McGrath). There's no comp between Pollock and McGrath though and no justification to go Pollock over him, period.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not talking Hadlee or McGrath, that's two similar talents and styles where the batting could be a tie breaker (though personally I still prefer McGrath). There's no comp between Pollock and McGrath though and no justification to go Pollock over him, period.

Atleast in Tests I am not considering Pollock if McGrath is available; though I might in ODI if they were to bat at 8.....

 

[shortpitched713]

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

I threw 1 of them in each, for balance.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd rank these attacks 1, 2, 3 from top to bottom.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

And if your spinner also had McGrathesque batting, you'd gladly start the tail at 8, or even 7 if you've got say a Wasim Bari keeping?

 

[kyear2]

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.

I really find it amusing that people believe that you can somehow make up for a weak lineup by selecting a decent no. 8. That doesn't help the team, they still will lose, probably just by 20 less runs. These guys are not specialist batsmen, that's why they are down the order. Would you trust a batsman who averages 30 as a backbone in your middle order? A batsman averages 30 for two reasons, talented but inconsistent or not that talented but a grinder. Adding another one at 8, in constant pressure situations wouldn't seem to be the best of solutions. In strong teams, matters even less.

That's my issue with the all-rounder obsession, if they are specialists, the second skill isn't an ATG or anything above competent level, yet it's made out to be that way. That's equally why I get frustrated when people criticize Hammond and Kallis. They say they didn't take enough wickets to qualify, but really the job is to provide relief and take the odd wicket, and not get carted around the park. Pollock, nor any of the bowling all rounders are taking on a great attack that just decimated your lineup and winning the match.

If your lineup isn't scoring runs, you have bigger problems, problems Pollock isn't solving at 8. Want to make a difference, get a bowler who may bowl out the opposition for less.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm not talking Hadlee or McGrath, that's two similar talents and styles where the batting could be a tie breaker (though personally I still prefer McGrath). There's no comp between Pollock and McGrath though and no justification to go Pollock over him, period.

DWTA

 

[shortpitched713]

I really find it amusing that people believe that you can somehow make up for a weak lineup by selecting a decent no. 8. That doesn't help the team, they still will lose, probably just by 20 less runs. These guys are not specialist batsmen, that's why they are down the order. Would you trust a batsman who averages 30 as a backbone in your middle order? A batsman averages 30 for two reasons, talented but inconsistent or not that talented but a grinder. Adding another one at 8, in constant pressure situations wouldn't seem to be the best of solutions. In strong teams, matters even less.

That's my issue with the all-rounder obsession, if they are specialists, the second skill isn't an ATG or anything above competent level, yet it's made out to be that way. That's equally why I get frustrated when people criticize Hammond and Kallis. They say they didn't take enough wickets to qualify, but really the job is to provide relief and take the odd wicket, and not get carted around the park. Pollock, nor any of the bowling all rounders are taking on a great attack that just decimated your lineup and winning the match.

If your lineup isn't scoring runs, you have bigger problems, problems Pollock isn't solving at 8. Want to make a difference, get a bowler who may bowl out the opposition for less.

 

[kyear2]

DWTA

And that's fine, but there isn't a captain alive who would chose Pollock over one of the two greatest fast bowlers to ever play the game.

 

[kyear2]

And if your spinner also had McGrathesque batting, you'd gladly start the tail at 8, or even 7 if you've got say a Wasim Bari keeping?

So you're taking Ashwin over Murali? In any possible scenario, home and away?

 

[kyear2]

View attachment 38459

But that's exactly what you're doing. Pollock has scored two hundreds in his career and both came in the same year, he also has 1 short of 40 not outs.

But you basically look at his averages and think, he must have been good. Have you not wondered why even with those numbers why no one rates him nearly as highly as you do?

And it's not because he was from SA. Because Steyn, Donald, Kallis, the minor AB, Smith etc. He wasn't the best bowler on his team, and he certainly isn't the 3rd most valuable player of all time.

You didn't discover some nuggets that somehow everyone else missed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So you're taking Ashwin over Murali? In any possible scenario, home and away?

See, I won't take Ashwin over Murali in almost any condition and I by no means rate him really close to Warne, Murali or O'Reilly like Shortpitched does; but I gotta admit, Ashwin gets too much trashed for his records in Australia (42) and South Africa (50), while Warne (India - 43, West Indies - 40) and Murali (Australia - 75, India - 45) suffers from the exact same problem.

 

[kyear2]

See, I won't take Ashwin over Murali in almost any condition and I by no means rate him really close to Warne, Murali or O'Reilly like Shortpitched does; but I gotta admit, Ashwin gets too much trashed for his records in Australia (42) and South Africa (50), while Warne (India - 43, West Indies - 40) and Murali (Australia - 75, India - 45) suffers from the exact same problem.

Understood, but also, hasn't Ashwin been somewhat hidden / protected from SENA tours?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Understood, but also, hasn't Ashwin been somewhat hidden / protected from SENA tours?

Played roughly equal no of matches in SENA as Murali really (24 to 27; and on not counting NZ, 23 to 21)....

 

[shortpitched713]

So you're taking Ashwin over Murali? In any possible scenario, home and away?

Not in this particular case, no. But saying it's always crazy to take Shaun Pollock over a top Specialist (especially when I already consider Pollock to be a top level specialist, unlike say Miller who is clearly somewhat lesser as a bowler) in any situation, is equally extreme.

I would say that batting can be anywhere from a marginal consideration (number 9), to being equally as important as bowling (number 7) even within a hypothetical 4 man bowling attack.

Obviously not going to care about bowling for the 11 or 10 batsmen, because even with my own membership in the batdeep brigade, I won't take it that far.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Pollock was SA’s Marshall

 

[kyear2]

Not in this particular case, no. But saying it's always crazy to take Shaun Pollock over a top Specialist (especially when I already consider Pollock to be a top level specialist, unlike say Miller who is clearly somewhat lesser as a bowler) in any situation, is equally extreme.

I would say that batting can be anywhere from a marginal consideration (number 9), to being equally as important as bowling (number 7) even within a hypothetical 4 man bowling attack.

Obviously not going to care about bowling for the 11 or 10 batsmen, because even with my own membership in the batdeep brigade, I won't take it that far.

You said earlier that you invalidated batting all rounders because hardly any of the ATG teams had them, getting by with "part timers"
I pointed out the same applied to bowling allrounders with the 3 greatest teams of all time getting by with "part timers" like Marshall, Warne and Lindwall, so does that invalidate the importance of bowling allrounders as well?

You didn't answer

 

[shortpitched713]

You didn't discover some nuggets that somehow everyone else missed.

 

[shortpitched713]

You said earlier that you invalidated batting all rounders because hardly any of the ATG teams had them, getting by with "part timers"
I pointed out the same applied to bowling allrounders with the 3 greatest teams of all time getting by with "part timers" like Marshall, Warne and Lindwall, so does that invalidate the importance of bowling allrounders as well?

You didn't answer

It's a question that doesn't need an answer. Obviously, if Gillespie, Lee, and Warne all averaged 10 more with the bat a piece with no bowling cost, it would be helpful for Australia, or whichever Test side they played for.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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?

Are we picking the best balance so considering batting as well, or best attack?