Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Coronis]

And again, this isn't a viable argument, because outside of about 10 people on this forum, the concept isn't one that's widely utilized

The latest poll results don't really support this statement because 23/69 (or one-third) of the votes are for Imran so that's more than 10 people automatically, unless the poll has been infested by multis

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying Imran isn't an option for the team.

Wow, its totally like a smear campaign! No on the nose accuracy by the journalist or contradiction from the subject at all!

 

[Bolo.]

If there was ever a modern team that has the luxury of playing 5 specialist bats, a great wicketkeeper batsman and playing 5 specialists bowlers, with 3 of them even being more than handy with the bat, it was the great Australian team.

They had very arguably the greatest modern batting line up, and the best batting oriented wicketkeeper batsman of all time, with Gilly.

And even they eschewed going the 5 bowler route because you are still going in a batsman short.

Now if a team wants to go five bowlers, that's fine. That doesn't mean that going with 4 is weakening the bowling, not even remotely.

Speaking of that AUS team, RSAs best ever run of series results came between 98 and 2001 when they got 10 wins and 1 draw out of 11.

In the same period, Aus lost 2 and drew 1.

Aus had better specialist bats, bowlers, and Gilchrist. RSA had ARs.

But you don't think ARs get wins?

RSA lacked good specialists, which forced them into playing some meh ARs. Aus lacked ARs, which forced them into playing specialists. Both would have been happier with a bit more of what the other team had. Selection policy isn't dictated by some inflexible formula. It's determined by the players available.

 

[Cipher]

Right thanks agreed.

Not sure if you've seen this video before but thought it was a good story from Ravi
How Sunil Gavaskar reacted after being hit on the head by a Malcolm Marshall bouncer

 

[subshakerz]

Not sure if you've seen this video before but thought it was a good story from Ravi
How Sunil Gavaskar reacted after being hit on the head by a Malcolm Marshall bouncer

Yup I have seen it. Strangely Gavaskar rated Roberts the best pacer he faced

 

[kyear2]

As I've said, it's not really a matter of opinion – but if you want the best chance to take 20 wickets (and are willing to make draws become wins at the expense of more draws becoming losses), pick 5 proper bowlers. It's a very common team makeup, almost as common as 4. If you're struggling to take 20 wickets and afraid of a draw then the opponents will be batting for quite a long time. Using Sobers for 20+ overs is really not ideal.

It really isn't.

Which teams regularly picks 5 "proper bowlers"?

And I don't mean using a Botham / Miller type who can bat in the top 6 / 7. Genuine 5 "proper" bowlers.

Teams have dabbled but generally all revert back to base format, because it works.

And if using Sobers for 30 overs isn't ideal, why is he literally in every XI. How many are Miller in instead of him?

I'll answer, none.

 

[kyear2]

I do think one thing to remember here is that teams haven't always had the talent to be able to have 5 bowlers who all fit together well. Quite often they didn't even have 4 good bowlers.

I think more teams struggle to find 6 good batters than to find or put together a decent attack.

 

[Cipher]

And the reason why their 4 man attack dominated is because their bowling attack was so much better relative to the rest of the competition then that they didn't need the extra bowler. If they had to play now or against a lot of good bowling attacks consistently they'd have considered a 5th bowler/AR and moved Gilchrist up to 6 like any sane, rational human being who knows about Test cricket would, in order to have the edge over them.

I'm not sure the 2001 Australia side would need 5 bowlers playing today imo. Batting sides are not lasting as many overs & averaging less than in previous eras which means the workload for the bowlers is lower.

That said & also asking @ataraxia on this, if you were bowling to an AT test team how many overs are we expecting they would bat facing an AT bowling lineup?

All dependent on the day of course but with such a talented batting ceiling it could be 120+ overs. Could they also get rolled in less than a day? Possibly? But you'd expect that your pace bowlers can get through 20 overs a day & your spinner can bowl more than that. So you could cover a day with just 3 pacemen & a spinner.

Although whether it's ideal to have your spinner bowl that much on a pace friendly deck might be another thing.
I'm also unaware of when pace bowlers start losing their effectiveness in bowling load. But I think the big problem arises if the batting side lasts more than 4 sessions. Because your 4 bowlers are likely quite spent/losing their effectiveness by that point. But is the trade off in having a 5th proper bowler over a Sobers worth it? How many more runs are you chasing with him bowling 15-20+ overs vs a top bowler? 20/30 runs more? You're losing that much or more with the trade off in batting imo. And if your main 4 AT bowlers are struggling to get them out is a 5th going to make the difference?

 

[ataraxia]

That said & also asking @ataraxia on this, if you were bowling to an AT test team how many overs are we expecting they would bat facing an AT bowling lineup?

I have no reason to suspect it'd turn out much different on average to a test match or 5-day FC match or 5-day club match between two average teams. It's not an unstoppable force v. immovable object type of situation.

 

[Cipher]

I have no reason to suspect it'd turn out much different on average to a test match or 5-day FC match or 5-day club match between two average teams. It's not an unstoppable force v. immovable object type of situation.

In that case it’s more likely that they’re batting for 80-90 overs but not a huge innings. 5 genuine bowlers might be overkill

 

[Bolo.]

Again I have to stress, this makes no damn sense.

Even if we go down the illogical tangent that you're implying, unless you're playing 5 bowlers you're also weakening the bowling, but twice. If you're playing 5 bowlers, but choosing them based on batting, you still have a lower quality attack.

There's a template to this at this point. 5 batsmen, a batting all rounder, a wicket-keeper batsman and 4 bowlers.

So everyone else who's following the insane tangent is also weakening the blowing twice?

Using 4 bowlers isn't weakening the bowling, it's the established and well proven best balance for a team. The no. 6 batsman is also primarily a batsman, so yes, that's where the weighting lies.

I could even understand an argument if you wanted to allocate the no. 8 spot as a bowling all rounder spot. But to suggest that I'am (and by extension everyone else on the forum) weakening the attack by playing "only" 4 front line bowlers, then the ones choosing them by batting average are "weakening" the attack twice.

The argument lacks logic and coherency.

You let the batsmen handle the batting and the bowlers handle the bowling. Otherwise you're just hurting the quality of both.

And again, this isn't a viable argument, because outside of about 10 people on this forum, the concept isn't one that's widely utilized, as the vast majority of pundits, former players etc understand the benefit of choosing the best attack.

Take 4 bowlers. Now add an extra bowler to the same attack. Which attack is stronger? You are compromising on bowling.

So am I, but it is an extremely minor compromise that gives me a lot more batting, and the best cricketers.

Selecting purely on primary, and trying to get the balance of the attack right, I would have Evans?, Marshall, Steyn, Murali, McGrath as a tail. Sound like a good idea to you, or is compromise for extra batting necessary?

 

[Xix2565]

I think more teams struggle to find 6 good batters than to find or put together a decent attack.

No they don't.

 

[Xix2565]

I'm not sure the 2001 Australia side would need 5 bowlers playing today imo. Batting sides are not lasting as many overs & averaging less than in previous eras which means the workload for the bowlers is lower.

That said & also asking @ataraxia on this, if you were bowling to an AT test team how many overs are we expecting they would bat facing an AT bowling lineup?

All dependent on the day of course but with such a talented batting ceiling it could be 120+ overs. Could they also get rolled in less than a day? Possibly? But you'd expect that your pace bowlers can get through 20 overs a day & your spinner can bowl more than that. So you could cover a day with just 3 pacemen & a spinner.

Although whether it's ideal to have your spinner bowl that much on a pace friendly deck might be another thing.
I'm also unaware of when pace bowlers start losing their effectiveness in bowling load. But I think the big problem arises if the batting side lasts more than 4 sessions. Because your 4 bowlers are likely quite spent/losing their effectiveness by that point. But is the trade off in having a 5th proper bowler over a Sobers worth it? How many more runs are you chasing with him bowling 15-20+ overs vs a top bowler? 20/30 runs more? You're losing that much or more with the trade off in batting imo. And if your main 4 AT bowlers are struggling to get them out is a 5th going to make the difference?

Yes they absolutely would. Maybe not atm when most teams are rebuilding but against the best sides recently picking 4 bowlers only is asking to lose. Even with helpful pitches, which will work against them just as much as it helps. They'd still overbowl their bowlers more than the opposition who'll have better depth to avoid this.

I don't see it taking 120 overs to get an ATG batting lineup out on average. It's not like they're facing an average attack here. I honestly don't see how 5 bowlers is overkill regardless of the number of overs bowled in ATG matchups. You're there to get wickets cheaply and quickly, not have a picnic. Pick the best attack with the team balance in mind, and thanks to some ATGs being uber talented, we don't need to worry too much about having a long tail.

 

[kyear2]

Speaking of that AUS team, RSAs best ever run of series results came between 98 and 2001 when they got 10 wins and 1 draw out of 11.

In the same period, Aus lost 2 and drew 1.

Aus had better specialist bats, bowlers, and Gilchrist. RSA had ARs.

But you don't think ARs get wins?

RSA lacked good specialists, which forced them into playing some meh ARs. Aus lacked ARs, which forced them into playing specialists. Both would have been happier with a bit more of what the other team had. Selection policy isn't dictated by some inflexible formula. It's determined by the players available.

So this is how data is manipulated.

1. S.A had Donald and Pollock. I believe that was the best opening partnership at the time. Kallis is also the one the everyone here claims isn't a real all rounder?

2. Yes in that period they had a good record, they also played quite a bit of us, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and England and beat up on India a couple times. Australia, was still the best team in the world at that time.

3. They also subsequently met up with Australia and promptly got beaten.

4. SA's best side post re-admission btw was the post 2007 / 2008 one that featured, strangely enough, mostly specialists.

Smith | McKenzie | Amla | Kallis | Prince | de Villiers | Boucher | Morkel | Harris | Steyn | Ntini

And the other great modern teams

Greenidge | Haynes | Richardson | Richards | Lloyd | Gomes | Dujon | Marshall | Holding | Garner | Walsh

Hayden | Langer | Ponting | Waugh | Waugh | Martyn | Gilchrist | Lee | Warne | Gillespie | McGrath

The next one up? The '75 Australian squad, then the SA '79 team? And true they were way more all rounder influenced, but that's very much the outlier. '54 England, '63 WI etc etc.

 

[Cipher]

Yes they absolutely would. Maybe not atm when most teams are rebuilding but against the best sides recently picking 4 bowlers only is asking to lose. Even with helpful pitches, which will work against them just as much as it helps. They'd still overbowl their bowlers more than the opposition who'll have better depth to avoid this.

I don't see it taking 120 overs to get an ATG batting lineup out on average. It's not like they're facing an average attack here. I honestly don't see how 5 bowlers is overkill regardless of the number of overs bowled in ATG matchups. You're there to get wickets cheaply and quickly, not have a picnic. Pick the best attack with the team balance in mind, and thanks to some ATGs being uber talented, we don't need to worry too much about having a long tail.

Well I can't say for other teams but the current Australian side uses 4 main bowlers & then gets the AR (Green/Marsh/Webster) to bowl around 10 overs an innings & its been working fine for them for several years. I just think that if you're not giving a specialist bowler a good chunk of overs (say 15+ a day) are they contributing enough with the ball to make up for that loss in batting?

I think if you were planning to go with just 4 pacemen you'd might be in some strife but with a spinner the total overs for a day should be covered. If you have a part timer come on instead of a genuine 5th bowler & they're only needed for ~5 overs that's not a big issue.
I do see it as an issue if the opposition has a big 120 over innings but that's less common & if you have an AR they can help with the load.

I just think for every additional bowler you add to your team that's overs you're taking away from another star. If the stats say you significantly drop off after 15 overs in a day I wouldn't have a problem with it but most pacers can get through 20 & if you're a machine like Hadlee or McGrath you can bowl plenty more than that.

 

[kyear2]

Wow, its totally like a smear campaign! No on the nose accuracy by the journalist or contradiction from the subject at all!

So that I'm clear.

The concept I'm speaking of, which I was very specific about btw, is not about selecting a single player, but rather selecting your entire bowling lineup based on batting averages.

Which sounds even more ridiculous the more it's repeated.

 

[kyear2]

They didn't because Steve Waugh wasn't a good all rounder when he could bowl and then stopped bowling due to injuries.

And the reason why their 4 man attack dominated is because their bowling attack was so much better relative to the rest of the competition then that they didn't need the extra bowler. If they had to play now or against a lot of good bowling attacks consistently they'd have considered a 5th bowler/AR and moved Gilchrist up to 6 like any sane, rational human being who knows about Test cricket would, in order to have the edge over them.

Having a viable 5th bowling option is a plus, almost a must. A healthy Steve Waugh would have been a welcome bonus, no one's denying that.

That's not what's being argued by Bolo though. He's arguing about 5 primary bowling options rather than a batting all rounder like Waugh. Where again the value comes in just having the presence of one to assist with the rotations etc.

And no Gilchrist didn't want to bat higher, and from what I recall Australia didn't want him higher either. It would have unnecessarily shortened the batting lineup and fundamentally changed his role.

He was the sledge hammer after an ATG lineup, where he could just come out firing, the coup de gråce.

Why make it easy on the opposition.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

4. SA's best side post re-admission btw was the post 2007 / 2008 one that featured, strangely enough, mostly specialists.

Smith | McKenzie | Amla | Kallis | Prince | de Villiers | Boucher | Morkel | Harris | Steyn | Ntini

They were much better once Philander made the team.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not sure the 2001 Australia side would need 5 bowlers playing today imo. Batting sides are not lasting as many overs & averaging less than in previous eras which means the workload for the bowlers is lower.

That said & also asking @ataraxia on this, if you were bowling to an AT test team how many overs are we expecting they would bat facing an AT bowling lineup?

All dependent on the day of course but with such a talented batting ceiling it could be 120+ overs. Could they also get rolled in less than a day? Possibly? But you'd expect that your pace bowlers can get through 20 overs a day & your spinner can bowl more than that. So you could cover a day with just 3 pacemen & a spinner.

Although whether it's ideal to have your spinner bowl that much on a pace friendly deck might be another thing.
I'm also unaware of when pace bowlers start losing their effectiveness in bowling load. But I think the big problem arises if the batting side lasts more than 4 sessions. Because your 4 bowlers are likely quite spent/losing their effectiveness by that point. But is the trade off in having a 5th proper bowler over a Sobers worth it? How many more runs are you chasing with him bowling 15-20+ overs vs a top bowler? 20/30 runs more? You're losing that much or more with the trade off in batting imo. And if your main 4 AT bowlers are struggling to get them out is a 5th going to make the difference?

The short answer is no. It's not worth it. As evidenced by no one choosing one over him, ever.


The addition of a primary 5th bowling option at 6, compromises the primary role of the no. 6.

Sobers is a cheat code because he's making the team 100% on his batting alone, when you factor in his catching at slip he's one of the first 3 or 4 names on the sheet.

You then add a front line bowler who was world class for a decade in the middle of his batting peak. And that's your fifth bowler who can bowl 3 different styles as required.

Now that's an argument Hadlee can make, depending on preference, it's not one Imran can. That's the difference in the positioning of the arguments.

If you can make the team if you couldn't hold a bat, then yeah, we're adding the value and it's a cinch. If you can't, you're discussing compromises and if it's worth it.

 

[kyear2]

They were much better once Philander made the team.

Doesn't change the equation or premise of the discussion, they were a better team, third best of the last 50 years or so?

 

[ataraxia]

In that case it’s more likely that they’re batting for 80-90 overs but not a huge innings. 5 genuine bowlers might be overkillView attachment 47838

Why would an ATG match be played this century, when the number of overs bowled has been significantly shorter? We're not picking Hobbs or Bradman for how well they'd perform in this era lol.