He being who, Ashwin or Jadeja? Please be specific. I'm not going to hold the fact that pitches in fast bowling dominant places get made to basically take spin out of the equation against either of them, especially when their record vs other spinners in their games still is decent.
You are so ****ing stupid it's baffling you want to project your deficiencies onto me. Batting ARs aren't preferred anymore than bowling ARs, but they just offer less value to a Test side in general because of their primary skill being less valuable. Bowling is the more valuable skill and given that there's less bowlers vs batters in a side it inherently makes bowlers/bowling ARs more valuable. Your batting lineup's runs don't just come from thin air, they have to face the opposition attack to score them and it's going to be easier in general to score vs the worse attack than the better one. The batters will have less runs to make/outscore simply because their bowling attack is better at taking wickets and containing runs. It makes life easier for everyone and that you don't want this is insane. Get a straitjacket and check yourself in for your own safety.
We're talking about picking in general, aren't we? Either way, having the bowling advantage is key and part of that in such hypotheticals is to be able to have more quality options while maintaining the balance in the side. Hence 5 >>>> 4. Simpletons can get this. Australia not needing one because of having McWarne and a better 4 man attack than anyone else in that era is not a great rebuttal, it just shows that like every great side they had the bowling superiority to dominate the era. I don't see why I have to subscribe to punditry which doesn't use logic or facts to make a point here, nor do I care about who makes more fans' ATG lists. You're still using a fallacy to make a point, which just shows that you're so utterly incapable of making a coherent argument.
A batting allrounder is basically meaningless in such discussions because we're talking about going up against batters who average like 70-80 vs bowlers averaging over 30. I'll take Imran or Hadlee over Sobers and Kallis any time any day if they could only occupy one spot.
We're discussing bowlers who are perceived to have the 5th bowler role, who did you think I was speaking of? But the twisting of words is hilarious. Warne didn't need doctored pitches to succeed and he played well in most conditions. That's what separates him from the ones that can only thrive in such conditions and primarily hidden in others.
Ok, batting isn't by any large value or margin less valuable than bowling. If we're discussing it rationally, something you're obviously incapable of doing, and have to chose one, by the most slender of margins, bowlers do get the edge, because you generally have to take 20 wickets to win a match, but it's set up by the runs the batsmen score. This is evident to even the youngest children playing or following the game. Not to mention scoreboard pressure than can assist the bowlers in various scenarios.
Ok, so the reason batting all rounders aren't only preferred but built into the selection of teams is becuse with a typical team, the batting all rounder provides a fifth bowler while balancing the need for a viable top order batsman.
A fifth bowler on their own doesn't provide this, but rather batting depth. To place such a player in the top order isn't often seen as viable because you're a batsman short and more vulnerable to a batting collapse.
Going by the idiotic team you posted earlier, or the alternative of going with Flower, you've created the following problems. You're legitimately a batsman short, with everyone 6 and above batting out of their depth and Murali and Pigeon and 10 and 11. If you replace Gilly with Flower you now have a substandard keeper to go along with, Sobers apart a lackluster cordon with no viable option at 3rd. So you're automatically still taking less wickets while simultaneously a scoring less runs. That's really hard to accomplish btw.
The fact that you believe that going against that thought process makes one insane means that you might be the one in need of a straight jacket.
Imran had a rpi of, it bears repeating 27, during his bowling career, the belief that that's good enough to warrant the dropping of an ATG batsman for the benefit of the extra 5 overs he's going to bowl with an old soft ball over a Sobers is laughable at best, possibly the reason that no one selects it.
And no one is talking about fans AT selections, and with your discarding of pundits as lacking "logic or facts", yeah, what could 12 former test captains know that you don't to unanimously select Sobers over Imran 12 - 0.
And you keep saying I'm relying on said pundits when I've clearly spelt out to you the logic and reasons behind my position, you just chose to ignore said points
In any event, all you're demonstrating is your arrogance, ignorance, and stunning lack of common sense and self awareness.
And I must stress on the arrogance that you know the game better than every former player, captains included, journalist and historian, and they all lack your insight and apparently unique brilliance.
And that anyone who points out the fallacy of your arguments or who disagrees with you belongs in a straight jacket.
In any event you totally lost me by suggesting that batting all rounders have no role in the game and are "basically useless" for selection and that Hadlee would be a better fit at 6 or 7 for an AT team.
You might be reminded that Hammond got Bradman out on multiple occasions as well as how often Sobers or Kallis took the wickets of top order batsmen and the value of wickets taken by both. That's not even getting into the massive gulf between the amount of runs scored by the two groups in general. Or the fact that a Sobers, Hammond or Kallis is providing you with you best slip fielders who would be the owns charged with completing the vast majority of the extra wickets you're supposedly.tsking with the old soft ball.
And not sure how many batsmen are out there averaging 70 or 80, but it bears mentioning that the 5th bowlers generally gets the worst of not only the condition of the ball, but comes on when batsmen are more likely to be set, contributing to their averages over 30. The extra bowler you're bringing in for those extra 5 overs are so, isn't going to be getting the new ball and will likely be bowling during the aforementioned dog over before said new ball and against more set batsmen.
The cost / benefit analysis would suggest that it's not worth it.
