Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[kyear2]

Form can come and go for various reasons. Imran still took plenty of wickets in the series which I will give him credit for that. I am not making a circular argument because I'm not just taking Imran's bowling into account . Viv was dismissed by other bowlers 5 times to Imran's 4. (6 times if you include the ODI during the series in which he only scored 20). The fact that Sarfraz Nawaz only ever dismissed him in just this series alone (twice), the same for Wasim Raja (once) & Saleem Altaf (once) & 1 out of 2 times for Mushtaq Mohammad to me suggests that he was getting out easier than he normally would be. 9 other batsmen outperformed him in this series. 9! That is not the showing of a usual premier bat. Even if you're getting dominated by one player surely you can find ways to attack the others (like Gavaskar did).

I'm not saying Imran getting him out makes the case for Viv being in bad form, it's more the other lower calibre bowlers getting him out & Viv being out performed by several other batsmen (WI & PAK) that is making me dubious about how well he was playing. Yes Imran should get credit for contributing to Viv's poor showing with the bat but I also think Viv was not up to his level of batting that he achieved in the previous year or after that. Given that these same bowlers did not trouble Viv to nearly the same extent in other series (including Imran) I do think there's an argument that their success here against Viv was an aberration rather than the norm.

I know this comes across as an outcome bias (rather than a circular argument) but why else could Imran only get Viv out regularly in this one series if not for form? Because this occurred before Imran even hit his peak as a bowler, so he should have been continuing to get him out regularly if everything else remained constant but he didn't for some reason.

You'll find you'll be less frustrated if you just skip going 16 rounds with Subz, or just place him on ignore.

Think Smalisha said that Pigeon's batting was a meme and from selecting him themselves, said that somehow it's now almost disqualifying somehow. The 2nd best bowler is somehow bot viable for such a team because he couldn't bat. That's the idiocy of the argument.

Somehow McGrath though, in a large sized poll, with a close to full representation from the community is closer to doubling up Imran's score than he is close to the actual vote total.
Not to add a close 2nd place overall.

And gain, not saying either aren't viable. Nit the notion of selecting both because they can bat the best doesn't make sense to me.

And to finish off, just because an opinion is the loudest, doesn't mean that it's representative or the best.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

People who understand the sport, understand that the ultimate goal is 20 wickets and the getting them as fast and as cheaply and efficiently as possible is the objective.

No, it isn't that simple.

The ultimate goal is winning (matches & series). Draws are valuable.

There is no point taking 20 wickets quickly if you can't chase 220+ in the 4th innings. Teams need to be picked on the proviso that matches can go long, so don't just pick 4 swing bowlers in England. There is also a place for tailend runs and partnerships to frustrate the opposition. It may benefit a team to bowl at a certain time (under lights in a pink ball test, early in the morning of day 2/3 in England etc.) and lower order batting is helpful with this.

 

[subshakerz]

You'll find you'll be less frustrated if you just skip going 16 rounds with Subz, or just place him on ignore.

Weak.
If he is going to put me on ignore, don't mention me so much.

 

[subshakerz]

After some reflection I don't think there's a big difference either in getting him out at some point in the match. It is just the speed (and possibly better new ball ability of Marshall compared to Imran) of which Marshall could dismiss him but you're not a fan of that criteria (even though I'd argue it is better to get someone out early rather than later but that's team/context dependent) so lets leave it there

Right thanks agreed.

But if he's more likely to be successful this should also translate to top batsmen yes?

Generally yes because he is already established as a better bowler, not IMO him getting better bats out (harder to prove) makes him a better bowler.

Okay I'll agree with you that he did play some better batting sides more often. Although not so much with Australia as I do think their late 80's/90's batting lineup is equal or better to the late 70/80's teams with Greg Chappell. It's more about playing India more often with 1 better bat in Viswanath (a decent but not elite bat which I still have my doubts that it's a big difference maker), early 80's WI (definitely fair as a difference) & a few games against 70's England. In comparison to Marshall being able to play 80's/90's England more often.

This is mitigated somewhat (although not entirely) by getting 10 games against the SRI minnows. I think you're also underselling Pakistan's batting ability in this period btw, I think Coronis showed you stats that they were comparable H2H to WI after Clive Lloyd retired.

I do think Marshall had to face a better NZ side for his 7 matches compared to Imran as well. But yes after looking into it Imran did have a higher proportion of games against strong sides, did he perform better against them than what Marshall did or would have? That's up for debate. Which I guess you've been trying to say all along, sorry.

Yes I just wanted to provoke that argument on stronger sides vs best bats. But glad we could discuss.

 

[subshakerz]

Form can come and go for various reasons. Imran still took plenty of wickets in the series which I will give him credit for that. I am not making a circular argument because I'm not just taking Imran's bowling into account . Viv was dismissed by other bowlers 5 times to Imran's 4. (6 times if you include the ODI during the series in which he only scored 20). The fact that Sarfraz Nawaz only ever dismissed him in just this series alone (twice), the same for Wasim Raja (once) & Saleem Altaf (once) & 1 out of 2 times for Mushtaq Mohammad to me suggests that he was getting out easier than he normally would be. 9 other batsmen outperformed him in this series. 9! That is not the showing of a usual premier bat. Even if you're getting dominated by one player surely you can find ways to attack the others (like Gavaskar did).

I'm not saying Imran getting him out makes the case for Viv being in bad form, it's more the other lower calibre bowlers getting him out & Viv being out performed by several other batsmen (WI & PAK) that is making me dubious about how well he was playing. Yes Imran should get credit for contributing to Viv's poor showing with the bat but I also think Viv was not up to his level of batting that he achieved in the previous year or after that. Given that these same bowlers did not trouble Viv to nearly the same extent in other series (including Imran) I do think there's an argument that their success here against Viv was an aberration rather than the norm.

I know this comes across as an outcome bias (rather than a circular argument) but why else could Imran only get Viv out regularly in this one series if not for form? Because this occurred before Imran even hit his peak as a bowler, so he should have been continuing to get him out regularly if everything else remained constant but he didn't for some reason.

Sure but as I mentioned, Viv had a tendency to occasionally take it easy against lesser bowlers and have the occasional lesser showing (India 83 an example), Pakistan at that point barely had a rep as an emerging weak team.

Much more plausible that he simply was sloppy versus these guys, except Imran who had emerged as a threat in Australia, than actually was struggling scoring runs against them

 

[kyear2]

No, it isn't that simple.

The ultimate goal is winning (matches & series). Draws are valuable.

There is no point taking 20 wickets quickly if you can't chase 220+ in the 4th innings. Teams need to be picked on the proviso that matches can go long, so don't just pick 4 swing bowlers in England. There is also a place for tailend runs and partnerships to frustrate the opposition. It may benefit a team to bowl at a certain time (under lights in a pink ball test, early in the morning of day 2/3 in England etc.) and lower order batting is helpful with this.

If you're choosing you bowling attack to ensure draws, then you'll surely get them, and more losses than one would expect as a result.
This is a batting lineup comprising of the greatest batsmen ever, if the opposition is rolling Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers and co, the hubris to believe that a tail, any tail would consistently prevail is laughable. But moving on.

I will use Imran here as one of the top 5 lower order (7/8) bats in history.

Imran played in 88 tests and batted in 126 innings.

Subz hates it when I bring up his rpm as it's ridiculously low compared to his rpi. The overall production is relatively quite low.

And for the record his rpi is 30.2, his rpm is 43.2. the drop off being well below that of a front line batsman. The reason being, he hardly batted twice... Why you ask? Because batting that low down you don't often get to bat twice. If you do, you're loosing, and you're no. 8 isn't consistently saving your bacon and you have bigger problems.

Btw, as we use Imran's preferred timetable for bowling as '74 to '88, we should use the same for the batting as well, fair?
During that time he had 72 matches and 105 innings. That leaves us with a rpi of 27 and a rpm of 39.

To dig a little deeper, in the 24 matches that Pakistan won, Imran batted in 28 innings. That gives a rpm of 28 and a rpi of 33.

You mention chasing runs in the 4th innings. I think it's also instructive to remember that in his entire career, Imran had one single successful 4th innings chase. And even then he came in at 4 to finish off the match with Javed.

McGrath in similar if not exaggerated comparison, played in 124 matches, he batted in 138 innings. You're batting at no. 11.

Again, if you're no. 11 is batting often in the 4th innings, you're loosing the games regardless, because and again it bears repeating, you have bigger problems.

So you're going to drop your potentially best bowler who bats at 11, for replacement runs when he would have batted twice at most once a series over a career?

Having a viable no. 8 has value, trying to pack the batting to 11, doesn't. And especially if it's at the expense of your best attack.

Having a "strong tail" doesn't make up for a weak middle order, it's at best to compliment and for the rare rear guard action, and definitely not at the expense of your best shot at taking 20 wickets. Especially considering, they don't bat that often, hardly twice and especially not in 4th innings.

If having the best batsmen ever in your team doesn't allow you to select your best bowlers, then when does?

 

[subshakerz]

No, it isn't that simple.

The ultimate goal is winning (matches & series). Draws are valuable.

There is no point taking 20 wickets quickly if you can't chase 220+ in the 4th innings. Teams need to be picked on the proviso that matches can go long, so don't just pick 4 swing bowlers in England. There is also a place for tailend runs and partnerships to frustrate the opposition. It may benefit a team to bowl at a certain time (under lights in a pink ball test, early in the morning of day 2/3 in England etc.) and lower order batting is helpful with this.

Kyear knows this. I gave examples of how an ATG side like Aus were regularly bailed by their lower order. Just reposting below.

Sure.

Remember Australia had a relatively very good tail of Warne, Brett Lee and Gillespie off and on.

Vs SA 2002, Aus are 6-185 well behind SA as Warne scores a fifty and Gilly a ton as Aus get a matchwinning lead.

Vs Eng 2002, Australia are eight down and 100 behind Eng as Gillespie hangs with Gilly and they achieve parity and win eventually.

Vs Bang 2006 Gillespie hangs with Gilly who scores a ton as they are 250 runs behind and 7 down and they get close enough to eventually win.

Vs Pak 2004, Warne and Gillespie hang around with Langer long enough to take Aus from 230-6 to 381 and win the game.

Vs Eng 2005 Edgbaston as Warne and Brett Lee take Australia from sure loss at 8-175 to near win.

Vs Eng 2005 3rd test Warne and Lee hang with Ponting to draw the game.

Vs Eng 2005 4th test without Lee and Warne Australia likely lose by innings or easy 4th innings chase.

Vs SA 2006 3rd test Lee scores vital runs in both innings to win a close test.

Vs NZ 2001 3rd test without Warnes 99, Australia likely lose the game as they are struggling against a high score.

Vs Ind 2007/8, Aus tail with Symonds takes them from 6-134 to 463.

Vs Ind 2004, Aus are 7-350 in response to 705 and Gillespie helps takes them to 474 and eventually game drawn.

Vs Eng 2001 3rd test Gillespie hangs with Gilly to get them par with England in a low scoring contest.

Vs SL 99, Gillespie with Ponting save Aus from complete embarassment in the 1st innings

Vs WI 99 4th test Aus tail stretches the 1st innings which ends up being vital in winning the test.

There are more but I think I made the point.

 

[kyear2]

And I'll like to point out that for the vocal minority, they're spent more time talking about the batting averages of your bowling attack than how said attack would actually compliment each other. Who would be the ultimate new ball pair, and who would be the most effective with the older ball and with Warne.

Also when we look at attacks by former players, pundits, historians and journalists alike, not a single one one had the line up being so early pushed.

It's near impossible to find any that had Hadlee far less him and Imran in the bat deep tradition.

Just for context, there's more teams that includes Barry Richards than they are bat deep teams.

When discussing team selection, there are more pundits that discuss having slip fielding as a priority than those than reference batting. Because again, you need to take the edges that they bowlers create, to you know, win the matches.
Yet none of the #batdeep proponents even factors that in, and many are as a result sorely lacking in that department. But I guess they'll draw the matches.

 

[Thala_0710]

Imo the most allroundest of allrounders would be someone who’s equal in skill level in batting and bowling. Which those two certainly don’t fit.

Rubel
(Shakib for a proper answer)

 

[Bolo.]

The poll is settled and the goal was never to turn this into an Imran thing, but this argument is hilarious.

The opening line is stupid. Teams are constructed as they are, and have been for quite some time now.

So there's no compromise even to start and that's the new patron saints of straw man arguments.

Ambrose doesn't have the batting career of Lara and there's an all rounder spot for such unicorns. And that's just it, there's on all rounder spot, and at most a consideration at 8, and even that isn't universal.

Yes, pick the best 4 bowlers and a balanced attack is a principal for normal teams, but is it for lack of resources or prioritizing bowling out the opposition to win matches.

We go through pains to say why Sachin is the perfect middle order batsman and ideal for the no. 4 or spot spot for such a team, and as we should, because that's his primary job, even though he could never match the utility or value of a Hammond or Kallis.

But his primary job is to score at 4 / 5 and he's the best suited and skilled to do so.

I just don't know, how the same though process is somehow ignored for the bowlers of the team. Essentially when bowlers have been the heart beat and central figures of every great and successful team. Bowlers are no less important than batting, and again, on a team where you have such strong batting, you have the luxury of selecting what ever is perceived to be the best attack.

A small but vocal segment of this community has decided that batting depth trumps all, and because they have been vocal it's been perceived that it's the predominant doctrine, but based on this and other polls, it's clearly not the case.

It's also not the case outside of CW either, where you will literally never find an attack based on batting prowess. You will literally never seen a bowling lineup of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne. No matter how well Hadlee batted, he wasn't seen as better than McGrath or Lillee by the vast majority, even during his own era, and he is seen well above where Imran is as well.

People who understand the sport, understand that the ultimate goal is 20 wickets and the getting them as fast and as cheaply and efficiently as possible is the objective.

You do recognise that you aren't playing the strongest attack by going in with 4 bowlers? And you are just compromising on bowling in a way you consider acceptable, while claiming nobody should compromise on bowling?

Who would you drop from your ATG side for AmboseLara? I doubt you will say Sobers. So is it a bat or a bowler?

 

[smash84]

You do recognise that you aren't playing the strongest attack by going in with 4 bowlers? And you are just compromising on bowling in a way you consider acceptable, while claiming nobody should compromise on bowling?

Who would you drop from your ATG side for AmboseLara? I doubt you will say Sobers. So is it a bat or a bowler?

You're expecting straight answers from someone whose main discussion technique is avoiding answering the question and repeating strawman arguments as nauseum.

 

[kyear2]

You're expecting straight answers from someone whose main discussion technique is avoiding answering the question and repeating strawman arguments as nauseum.

Just because you can't grasp them or would never agree with them, doesn't mean they're strawmen.

 

[subshakerz]

Just because you can't grasp them or would never agree with them, doesn't mean they're strawmen.

Move aside folks, @kyear2 is doing some serious 5D chess and rocket science here

 

[kyear2]

You do recognise that you aren't playing the strongest attack by going in with 4 bowlers? And you are just compromising on bowling in a way you consider acceptable, while claiming nobody should compromise on bowling?

Who would you drop from your ATG side for AmboseLara? I doubt you will say Sobers. So is it a bat or a bowler?

This is the part that's idiotic.

If you want to challenge the way teams are constructed, fine. You're a half a century or so late, but that's a totally different proposition.

So I'll go slowly for you and the three idiots that's liked the post so far.

Within the confines of how bowling attacks are constructed, yes it is the best attack.

It's not compromising, it's finding the best perceived balance between number of batsmen and bowlers, that's been pretty much established for a while now and the parameters for how the teams are selected.

So given the parameters established, then yes it is the best attack.

With regards to the last actual strawman hypothetical question, there can never be such a player, because to achieve greatness in one requires a sacrifice for the other and again, it's never happened.

The thing is, if there was prescedence anywhere, at any point for such team construction to back it up, but it's never been seen as credible.

In a 12 year old thread about the Wisden team, Smalisha was making excuses as to why Imran doesn't make such teams and making the argument for why he should.

One particular argument was that even if he doesn't make the cut as a bowler, which it's been proven that consensus believe he doesn't, then his batting makes up for that.

But that's identical to the argument that Subz has been making against Kallis, that he doesn't make the cut as a batsman, so the rest is irrelevant.

It can be argued, that if one doesn't make the shortlist purely on primary, the rest doesn't matter, it's not the all rounder spot, you're one of the primary 4 bowlers.

Now I'm not saying that Imran isn't viable, but he's certainly not among the first 4 choices either.

If I selected teams that way, or if you'll were even remotely consistent, then Hammond is a walk in lock over Tendulkar as well.

Greatest slip ever, slots in at 1st where he specialized and a contingency option for Sobers on flat pitches as a 6th option. You have the absolute perfect cordon with top 3 options of all time at their respective positions and 6 bowlers for any eventuality. That doesn't happen does it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is the part that's idiotic.

If you want to challenge the way teams are constructed, fine. You're a half a century or so late, but that's a totally different proposition.

So I'll go slowly for you and the three idiots that's liked the post so far.

Within the confines of how bowling attacks are constructed, yes it is the best attack.

It's not compromising, it's finding the best perceived balance between number of batsmen and bowlers, that's been pretty much established for a while now and the parameters for how the teams are selected.

So given the parameters established, then yes it is the best attack.

With regards to the last actual strawman hypothetical question, there can never be such a player, because to achieve greatness in one requires a sacrifice for the other and again, it's never happened.

The thing is, if there was prescedence anywhere, at any point for such team construction to back it up, but it's never been seen as credible.

In a 12 year old thread about the Wisden team, Smalisha was making excuses as to why Imran doesn't make such teams and making the argument for why he should.

One particular argument was that even if he doesn't make the cut as a bowler, which it's been proven that consensus believe he doesn't, then his batting makes up for that.

But that's identical to the argument that Subz has been making against Kallis, that he doesn't make the cut as a batsman, so the rest is irrelevant.

It can be argued, that if one doesn't make the shortlist purely on primary, the rest doesn't matter, it's not the all rounder spot, you're one of the primary 4 bowlers.

Now I'm not saying that Imran isn't viable, but he's certainly not among the first 4 choices either.

If I selected teams that way, or if you'll were even remotely consistent, then Hammond is a walk in lock over Tendulkar as well.

Greatest slip ever, slots in at 1st where he specialized and a contingency option for Sobers on flat pitches as a 6th option. You have the absolute perfect cordon with top 3 options of all time at their respective positions and 6 bowlers for any eventuality. That doesn't happen does it.

I fear an idiot is a person who is so engraved in a fantastical way the world behaves that they can't be reasoned with...... Someone foolishly claiming 5 bowler attacks are an oddity or balanced allrounders aren't worth it, oddly fits the bill too well.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the part that's idiotic.

If you want to challenge the way teams are constructed, fine. You're a half a century or so late, but that's a totally different proposition.

So I'll go slowly for you and the three idiots that's liked the post so far.

@Bolo. Looks like you reached the point of every prolonged argument with Kyear that he doesn't like losing.

 

[subshakerz]

In a 12 year old thread about the Wisden team, Smalisha was making excuses as to why Imran doesn't make such teams and making the argument for why he should.

@smash84 care to quote his 12 year old views?

Now I'm not saying that Imran isn't viable

Hahaha

 

[smash84]

@smash84 care to quote his 12 year old views?

Seems like he's gone crazy if he's going back 12 years to pick out what I had said.

OTOH one doesn't need to go too far back to witness his craziness. It's on display every week.

 

[Bolo.]

This is the part that's idiotic.

If you want to challenge the way teams are constructed, fine. You're a half a century or so late, but that's a totally different proposition.

So I'll go slowly for you and the three idiots that's liked the post so far.

Within the confines of how bowling attacks are constructed, yes it is the best attack.

It's not compromising, it's finding the best perceived balance between number of batsmen and bowlers, that's been pretty much established for a while now and the parameters for how the teams are selected.

So given the parameters established, then yes it is the best attack.

With regards to the last actual strawman hypothetical question, there can never be such a player, because to achieve greatness in one requires a sacrifice for the other and again, it's never happened.

The thing is, if there was prescedence anywhere, at any point for such team construction to back it up, but it's never been seen as credible.

In a 12 year old thread about the Wisden team, Smalisha was making excuses as to why Imran doesn't make such teams and making the argument for why he should.

One particular argument was that even if he doesn't make the cut as a bowler, which it's been proven that consensus believe he doesn't, then his batting makes up for that.

But that's identical to the argument that Subz has been making against Kallis, that he doesn't make the cut as a batsman, so the rest is irrelevant.

It can be argued, that if one doesn't make the shortlist purely on primary, the rest doesn't matter, it's not the all rounder spot, you're one of the primary 4 bowlers.

You really like going off on tangents. You weaken the bowling by only playing 4. I weaken the bowling by playing ARs. Do you understand that these are both just alternative ways of strengthening the batting?

You play neither Lara nor Ambrose in your AT team. Neither make your team on primary. But you would play AmbroseLara. This means that don't believe the primary argument at its base level. You are just saying that there is nobody good enough. That's fine, make that argument. Don't hide behind principles you don't subscribe to.

 

[Coronis]

So I'll go slowly for you and the three idiots that's liked the post so far.

@Bolo. @smash84 @subshakerz @capt_Luffy bet you idiots are still slowly recovering.