Why is it viewed as more important

[kyear2]

you conveniently ignored the next best team of their time chronologically because they had a bowling all rounder in their best xi and that wouldnt have fit in with your narrative

we’ve done this dance already and no, you cant win everywhere against all teams with just pacers no matter how much you believe that, your pace bias is leaking

bro you’re the one creating strawmans and claiming that you’re willing to listen to alternatives yet shooting them down. the Pakistani duo worked up an atg worthy record despite their fielders having hot potato hands

1. I don't think India is an AT great team,, not to the level of the other teams mentioned. Bumrah gets them close, but every conversation stats with "at home". That's not how it works.
2. Ideally you can have one, but the WI literally won everywhere with fast bowlers, so how can you say a team can't. They went into India in '83 and dominated.

3. How is it a pace bias when pace has dominated the landscape since the end of the war and it's infinitely less conditions dependant than spin?

4. Did it ever occur to you that possibly that's why they didn't win? But I guess that stats are more important.

I'm beginning to believe that no one here reads, they have been the one's saying that the others have no value, neither of them to be exact. All I said is that in a hypothetical higher levels both skills would have diminished value. Both.
Subs literally thinks that not only does just the one has value, but it's also worth diluting bowling ability for. That's where I disagreed. I don't think any of them are worth down grading the primary skill for.

The two most important skills in Test cricket are bowling and batting in that order. Catching is nowhere near on the level of batting, let alone bowling.

Yes, as primary skills, no question about that. As secondary skills all three are vital, and the fact I'm still arguing that makes me wonder when you started watching cricket. Part of what makes the bowlers successful are the slip fielders

 

[Bolo.]

People are doing a pretty big disservice to batting ARs by framing the conversation in terms of ATG teams. You want a Kallis/Sobers bowling as little as possible as the gap between them and the specialists is big in an ATG team. Basically just there as injury cover/resting bowlers.

In a typical team, they are a lot closer to the specialists. Will often be bowling better than one (or more) of the frontliners. Actual teams have weak links, injuries, bowlers who are unsuited to conditions, a lack of great spinners who can bowl a million overs etc.

 

[kyear2]

1980s WI and 2000s Aus would objectively be even better than they were if they had a great bowling AR in the team. Using the fact that they didn't have a good enough bowling all rounder for the role as proof that great teams don't need one is utterly non sensical.

If they had the chance to select Imran/Hadlee, they would 100% have done it.

The hypotheticals though, while missing the actual point.

1. Says who? They never needed one? How many series did they lose because they were lacking one? Marshall averaging 10 more runs an innings would have made them better somehow?

2. I don't need to prove that they didn't need a bowling all rounder, the fact that those three teams actually achieved greatness without one is a self evident truth.

The fact that 20 people on a cricket forum have decided that bowling all-rounders are the alpha male irreplaceable position of a cricket team, when not a single one has been the centre piece of a great team, or even part of one.

I said simply this, the great teams had a few things in common.

A very good to great opener, an ATG middle.order batsman, an ATG fast bowler and an amazing cordon. I should add a really good supporting bowler as well. Objectively speaking how is any of that false.

You-all want to talk about what could or should make a team great, I'm staying what actually did. Winning tests home and away for how many years?

Hadlee and Imran are amazing bowlers, but saying that, you can say the same thing about Kallis, Hobbs, Sobers even, that's a never ending slippery slope.

Why can't it be acknowledged that they were the two best teams in history, this is how they did it and it worked.

Hell, if we gave the 90's Pakistan team Waugh and Richardson, don't we think the catching alone would have make Wasim and the team better?

If they had the chance I'm a 100% sure they would have done it.

 

[subshakerz]

People are doing a pretty big disservice to batting ARs by framing the conversation in terms of ATG teams. You want a Kallis/Sobers bowling as little as possible as the gap between them and the specialists is big in an ATG team. Basically just there as injury cover/resting bowlers.

Blame Kyear we are responding to his hypothetical.

 

[kyear2]

I feel the recent weirdness associated with Team India has messed with people’s understanding of cricket.

Ashwin and Jadeja outplaying the actual batsmen has messed with everyone’s minds and they now expect Bumrah and Shami to do the same without looking at the actual problem. As a result the bowlers suddenly need to bat or the team are likely to lolapse. Woe is me.

Exactly.

No one is saying that lower order batting isn't important. We've seen too many examples to the contrary, how many of those we carried out by the "all rounders" is a totally different story. But the emphasis being placed on it all of a sudden is insane.

The thought that you must have the absolute best possibly batting options, even at the expense of the bowling, the skill that they are primarily chosen for, is crazy.

McGrath, quite likely the 2nd best (I know you feel differently) bowler ever, but to say that he wouldn't get chosen for such a match because he didn't bat well enough, is absolutely insane. If Marshall and McGrath are the best possible opening options, then you chose them, period.

And if you're going to chose M&M to open , you'd better get guys who can catch behind them.

 

[subshakerz]

The hypotheticals though, while missing the actual point.

1. Says who? They never needed one? How many series did they lose because they were lacking one? Marshall averaging 10 more runs an innings would have made them better somehow?

2. I don't need to prove that they didn't need a bowling all rounder, the fact that those three teams actually achieved greatness without one is a self evident truth.

Stop this fallacy.

Nobody is saying that a team can't achieve greatness without a bowling AR. But a bowling AR would have made WI or Aus better. How could Brett Lee or Garner averaging 20 runs more in average harm the team? It could only make them better obviously by strengthening the lower order and allowing more partnerships with Gilly etc., the same way if Viv suddenly became a test class spinner. There would be a bunch of more scenarios where his wickets would be useful that weren't the case otherwise.

The fact that 20 people on a cricket forum have decided that bowling all-rounders are the alpha male irreplaceable position of a cricket team, when not a single one has been the centre piece of a great team, or even part of one.

WI didn't have a spinner. Aus didn't have a worldclass third pacer. They didn't need these because they were facing inferior opposition so it didn't matter much. Yet these are standards for our ATG sides.

I said simply this, the great teams had a few things in common.

A very good to great opener, an ATG middle.order batsman, an ATG fast bowler and an amazing cordon. I should add a really good supporting bowler as well. Objectively speaking how is any of that false.

You-all want to talk about what could or should make a team great, I'm staying what actually did. Winning tests home and away for how many years?

There isn't any 'formula' for a great side. Just have much better versions of the same players you would have for a normal side and crush inferior teams.

Hell, if we gave the 90's Pakistan team Waugh and Richardson, don't we think the catching alone would have make Wasim and the team better?

If they had the chance I'm a 100% sure they would have done it.

Sure. Well this is exactly our argument for giving WI/Aus them bowling ARs. If you add skills a team doesn't have, they improve.

Btw are you willing to give Wasim/Imran extra points for not having a good slip cordon since you rate it as such a mandatory thing for success?

 

[ataraxia]

Exactly.

No one is saying that lower order batting isn't important. We've seen too many examples to the contrary, how many of those we carried out by the "all rounders" is a totally different story. But the emphasis being placed on it all of a sudden is insane.

The thought that you must have the absolute best possibly batting options, even at the expense of the bowling, the skill that they are primarily chosen for, is crazy.

McGrath, quite likely the 2nd best (I know you feel differently) bowler ever, but to say that he wouldn't get chosen for such a match because he didn't bat well enough, is absolutely insane. If Marshall and McGrath are the best possible opening options, then you chose them, period.

And if you're going to chose M&M to open , you'd better get guys who can catch behind them.

When I first joined #batdeep was a massive thing. If anything, it's shameful how it's faded away IMO.

 

[Sunil1z]

I am amazed at some of the arguments I am reading.

WI 80s Team and Aus 00 team also didn’t have Bradman. So , now we don’t need Bradman in ATXI team too if we don’t need bowling all rounder.

 

[subshakerz]

Exactly.

No one is saying that lower order batting isn't important. We've seen too many examples to the contrary, how many of those we carried out by the "all rounders" is a totally different story. But the emphasis being placed on it all of a sudden is insane.

Pretty sure I can point to several old timers, like Richie Benaud and Dickie Bird, who included Imran in their ATG XIs for his all-round skills. This is not a new thing.

The thought that you must have the absolute best possibly batting options, even at the expense of the bowling, the skill that they are primarily chosen for, is crazy.

Nobody here except you considers Imran a serious step down as a bowler. The problem is you keep harping on this.

Just take the L and let it go.

McGrath, quite likely the 2nd best (I know you feel differently) bowler ever, but to say that he wouldn't get chosen for such a match because he didn't bat well enough, is absolutely insane. If Marshall and McGrath are the best possible opening options, then you chose them, period.

And if you're going to chose M&M to open , you'd better get guys who can catch behind them.

Most of us probably have Marshall, McGrath and Imran in our ATG lineups. You're just wrong.

 

[Coronis]

1. Says who? They never needed one? How many series did they lose because they were lacking one? Marshall averaging 10 more runs an innings would have made them better somehow?

Um, yes, of course.

 

[subshakerz]

I am amazed at some of the arguments I am reading.

WI 80s Team and Aus 00 team also didn’t have Bradman. So , now we don’t need Bradman in ATXI team too if we don’t need bowling all rounder.

This is literally what Kyear2 is arguing. It's embarassing to read this.

 

[kyear2]

As strawman as this is, it's also kind of hilarious as a scenario.

Quite probably there's some nuance to be had here, instead of arguing for extremes of either side.

I'm not arguing any extreme, I'm saying all have equal roles to play in a match.

For the 30th time, the intention of the thread was to...

Stress the equal importance of all the secondary skills, not just one.

If Imran and Hadlee are recognized and elevated by their status as batsmen, why aren't batsmen you can catch also elevated by their ability to catch and win matches in that way.

Try to figure out why the very loud minority believes that the batting skills of a bowler is significantly is more important to the fortunes of a team than a fifth bowler or having a string cordon. Because at no point in history has this been borne out.

 

[subshakerz]

For the 30th time, the intention of the thread was to...

Stress the equal importance of all the secondary skills, not just one.

No, your intention was to say lower order batting doesn't really matter. Elite slip fielding does.

We've all made clear runs and wickets > elite catching.

Now you are going to comical lengths to suggest more runs from lower order bats won't affect a team being better.

 

[kyear2]

I am amazed at some of the arguments I am reading.

WI 80s Team and Aus 00 team also didn’t have Bradman. So , now we don’t need Bradman in ATXI team too if we don’t need bowling all rounder.

See now you're personalizing it and too being disingenuous.

I said a great opener, an ATG 3/4, an ATG pacer and a great cordon.

Bradman would fall under the ATG middle order bat.

And I didn't say the requirement for an ATG XI, I said for a great team, an actual regular team to be great. Those are what have proven to be the common factors and would be general requirements

The fanatism is crazy, making **** up.

 

[ataraxia]

Um, yes, of course.

Man can this guy seriously not comprehend that lower-order batting has an impact?

 

[kyear2]

Um, yes, of course.

As an opening bowler Malcolm Marshall lost a grand total of 4 games in his career.

How much better are we asking him to be, or would those extra runs have helped us win every game?

This is getting to be ridiculous.

 

[kyear2]

This is literally what Kyear2 is arguing. It's embarassing to read this.

Another lie and misrepresentation, you're on a roll.

The only thing that's embarrassing is the way you try to misrepresent what people are saying to fit your narrative.

But we all can't have a travelling clique to help encourage and bully.

 

[subshakerz]

See now you're personalizing it and too being disingenuous.

I said a great opener, an ATG 3/4, an ATG pacer and a great cordon.

Bradman would fall under the ATG middle order bat.

And I didn't say the requirement for an ATG XI, I said for a great team, an actual regular team to be great. Those are what have proven to be the common factors and would be general requirements

The fanatism is crazy, making **** up.

Can you just admit this entire conversation is basically because you don't think Imran as a bowler belongs in an ATG XI?

Otherwise you wouldn't bother with trying to justify why slip fielding should be as valued if you didn't think Imran's batting was getting too much value.

 

[subshakerz]

Another lie and misrepresentation, you're on a roll.

The only thing that's embarrassing is the way you try to misrepresent what people are saying to fit your narrative.

But we all can't have a travelling clique to help encourage and bully.

Pretty much everyone here is reading what you say the same way. Maybe you should work on how you present your arguments.

 

[subshakerz]

As an opening bowler Malcolm Marshall lost a grand total of 4 games in his career.

How much better are we asking him to be, or would those extra runs have helped us win every game?

This is getting to be ridiculous.

Yeah so WI would have won by bigger margins in Marshalls prime and when Marshall declined as a bowler WI would have won or drawn games they couldn't thanks to his extra runs.