Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[kyear2]

I personally am of the opinion that you don't really need an elite 5th option, and if you have a high workload pacer and a spinner you'd be able to go by with four elite bowling options and a fifth decent option pretty well as the fifth bowler wouldn't have to bowl much. My ATG XI would be

Hutton*
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

think that does the trick.

Pretty much.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with the setup though, 5 batsmen (Lara instead of Viv), a batting all rounder, a wkb, a spinner and 3 pacers (and ideally the no 8 can bat a bit)

All that's really needed.

You need that added cushion of the the batting all rounder and someone who can hold the bat the right way up is always a plus at 8.

 

[kyear2]

Every player has had pitches on which their skillsets were favoured. That Warne could succeed more than most spinners doesn't exclude that. And the recent era has clearly been quite different from the past with the amount of pace bowling and spin bowling depth around the world when conditions become so favourable. That you want to use this against Ashwin/Jadeja/any other player is just like you, to be so utterly stupid that you'd rather go off on tangents that mean nothing rather than behave and post like a regular human being with a functional brain.

Yes it is. You generally have more batters/people who make runs than you do bowlers, bowling is a much more difficult art physically speaking and runs made are affected by the bowling you face. Good bowlers concede less runs. Less runs conceded, easier totals to chase down or defend. Aka, winning, by having more runs when one side is completely bowled out. Even a baby would've gotten this, clearly though this is much too difficult for you to follow. Thus, bowling allrounders allow for having more batting talent in general without compromising on bowling talent, unlike batting allrounders. Hence why someone like Imran is better than Sobers or Kallis. He offers a top tier pacer's skillset with some handy batting talent.

That you'd make up fanciful problems about my choices isn't surprising, but it isn't based in reality either. All my batters bar Gilly (or Flower) are in their right spot, and Gilly/Flower can have the likes of Imran/Marshall/Hadlee/etc to hold up one end while they dominate. And the Flower/cordon slander is bizarre, given that my team is far more functional than anything you could even imagine. It's a meaningless whine about marginal gains offset by the greater value of a better team.

Pundits are not facts or generally logical, especially when it comes to making peer ratings/reviews/rankings. That they used to play Test cricket is of no relevance, not when they keep making stupid decisions, though clearly not on your level.

Neither Hammond nor Kallis bowled well enough to be considered proper bowlers, hence their relative lack of value vs bowling ARs. That doesn't mean that vs a top order batter they don't have more value than them. And again, slip fielding is not more valuable than good bowling/batting. I don't need top notch slip fielding because they don't boost the teams that much vs the more important skills.

Unlike most 5th bowlers, I will be having the likes of Warne/Imran/Murali/Marshall/etc who all have various old ball skills and aren't averaging over 30. The batters being more set isn't going to matter as much when they have no let up in pressure compared to the opening bowlers. Please, learn how to think first and then come back.

There's a difference between being better in certain conditions and useless in most.

Ok, so I assume that's why even in today's finals Australia and South Africa both still used batting all rounders? Australia has two more than useful lower order batsmen, and Boland in reserve, yet prefer to keep them at 8 and 9 and bat utilize the better batsman, because when you're 86 for 4 you prefer to have a primary batsman coming in than Richard Hadlee. As much as you believe bowlers are more important you still need to be able to set compeditive totals or even better, create scoreboard pressure. With regards to Imran and Kallis and Sobers, you're allowed to believe what you will, but there's no scenario in existence where Imran even matches the utility of a Sobers, Kallis or Hammond. I'm as a bowler is greatly reliant on a boosted home record as a bowler. As a batsman during his bowling career he maintained an rpi of 27, and even that included some healthy doses of down hill skiing. That's not a batsman who you want batting 6 or 7 in an AT lineup. Sobers, Kallis and Hammond bring not only ATG batting skills, more than sufficient bowling skills to take advantage of seaming conditions (like today in the WTC for instance) or to tough it out with the old ball in the dog overs. All 3 were capable of breaking partnerships and taking high value wickets, and again not needing the newer ball to do it. All 3 are also top 10 AT slip fielder who are invaluable in any matchup. Again, for the cricinfo (and literally every other) exercise Sobers was unanimously selected over Imran (12 -0) including the Pakistani judge. It's not close and it's not arguable.

The Flower and slip slander would only be bizarre is one thought that catches automatically happen and doesn't require specialists assistance. Flower isn't AT selection eligible purely by virtue of not even approaching the keeping standard required even for a shortlist. Slips? Yes you need specialists in the position, otherwise you're dropping critical chances and nullifying whatever advantage you think you're creating by playing an extra bowler.

I used to believe it was a cultural divide that used to assist in some "ignorant" statements about slips not being valuable, that it was based on watching sub continent play where there was little no no movement and even less carry, where spin ruled the roost. But such arguments are no longer viable with the advent of cable and the internet and everyone supposedly being able to view what makes up embodiment of the game in the majority of the cricketing world.
Even a cursory watch of today's play made evident the cliche, catches win matches. It requires just as much skill and practice as batting or bowling and a team isn't going to be viable the world round without an above average cordon.

I'm not going to comment on the fact that you believe that you alone know better and more than the overwhelming majority and consensus of former players, captains, journalists and pundits. That you've cracked the code and the rest of us are ignorant to the light that shines solely on you.

Again, no one is saying slip fielding is more important that primary batsmen or bowlers. But a 5th bowler isn't as important as a front line operator either, nor is a no. 8 batsman as important as your top order batter, and you slip specialist is just as important as the other two, quite arguably more so.

So to believe you don't need top notch slip assistance, and to believe that "they don't boost the team that much" makes one wonder who takes the catches that the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Steyn etc produces. It would bode you well to look at the types of cordons that each of them had, and to even take a look at the highlights of either and the level of catching they greatly benefitted from. It's quite frankly a must, something that can't be said for primarily 5th bowlers / bowling all rounders. History speaks for itself.

 

[Xix2565]

There's a difference between being better in certain conditions and useless in most.

Ok, so I assume that's why even in today's finals Australia and South Africa both still used batting all rounders? Australia has two more than useful lower order batsmen, and Boland in reserve, yet prefer to keep them at 8 and 9 and bat utilize the better batsman, because when you're 86 for 4 you prefer to have a primary batsman coming in than Richard Hadlee. As much as you believe bowlers are more important you still need to be able to set compeditive totals or even better, create scoreboard pressure. With regards to Imran and Kallis and Sobers, you're allowed to believe what you will, but there's no scenario in existence where Imran even matches the utility of a Sobers, Kallis or Hammond. I'm as a bowler is greatly reliant on a boosted home record as a bowler. As a batsman during his bowling career he maintained an rpi of 27, and even that included some healthy doses of down hill skiing. That's not a batsman who you want batting 6 or 7 in an AT lineup. Sobers, Kallis and Hammond bring not only ATG batting skills, more than sufficient bowling skills to take advantage of seaming conditions (like today in the WTC for instance) or to tough it out with the old ball in the dog overs. All 3 were capable of breaking partnerships and taking high value wickets, and again not needing the newer ball to do it. All 3 are also top 10 AT slip fielder who are invaluable in any matchup. Again, for the cricinfo (and literally every other) exercise Sobers was unanimously selected over Imran (12 -0) including the Pakistani judge. It's not close and it's not arguable.

The Flower and slip slander would only be bizarre is one thought that catches automatically happen and doesn't require specialists assistance. Flower isn't AT selection eligible purely by virtue of not even approaching the keeping standard required even for a shortlist. Slips? Yes you need specialists in the position, otherwise you're dropping critical chances and nullifying whatever advantage you think you're creating by playing an extra bowler.

I used to believe it was a cultural divide that used to assist in some "ignorant" statements about slips not being valuable, that it was based on watching sub continent play where there was little no no movement and even less carry, where spin ruled the roost. But such arguments are no longer viable with the advent of cable and the internet and everyone supposedly being able to view what makes up embodiment of the game in the majority of the cricketing world.
Even a cursory watch of today's play made evident the cliche, catches win matches. It requires just as much skill and practice as batting or bowling and a team isn't going to be viable the world round without an above average cordon.

I'm not going to comment on the fact that you believe that you alone know better and more than the overwhelming majority and consensus of former players, captains, journalists and pundits. That you've cracked the code and the rest of us are ignorant to the light that shines solely on you.

Again, no one is saying slip fielding is more important that primary batsmen or bowlers. But a 5th bowler isn't as important as a front line operator either, nor is a no. 8 batsman as important as your top order batter, and you slip specialist is just as important as the other two, quite arguably more so.

So to believe you don't need top notch slip assistance, and to believe that "they don't boost the team that much" makes one wonder who takes the catches that the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Steyn etc produces. It would bode you well to look at the types of cordons that each of them had, and to even take a look at the highlights of either and the level of catching they greatly benefitted from. It's quite frankly a must, something that can't be said for primarily 5th bowlers / bowling all rounders. History speaks for itself.

There's a difference between what comes down to a player's performance and what is dictated by the pitch.

Mulder is not a batting allrounder though, and Australia still have an incredible 4 man attack ahead of Webster/Green (though I'm not sure how much Green can bowl atm) anyway. In fact Mulder being a bowling AR was crucial for SA given Ngidi's poor performance, which meant that they still had a decent pace option even though overall they were screwed by his bad showing. You too can choose to believe how Imran can't ever be as useful as Sobers/Kallis but the reality doesn't have a Kyear bias. Stop relying on what other people think and use that mass in your head to come up with some actual points here.

Catching the ball is just not as important as bowling the ball or batting against the ball. The value of a specialist in that is thus naturally lower and so not as vital to select for. And even then to act like Flower wasn't up to standard is just doing what you accuse me and other people of when it comes to judging players 'unfairly/incorrectly'. I just don't see anything that suggests you have a point here.

I'm going to comment on the fact that you absolutely love to make **** up all the time though, so suck it. At the very least I'm still better than you.

No, a slip specialist is nowhere near the value of a 5th bowler, since the bowler is still the one creating wicket taking chances in more than one way compared to a slip who can only convert a certain type of chance created. Again, making **** up is a bad thing. You definitely don't need top notch slip fielding as much as you need good bowling/batting lineups. History speaks on that far more than it does on the value of slips being so high.

 

[smash84]

There's a difference between what comes down to a player's performance and what is dictated by the pitch.

Mulder is not a batting allrounder though, and Australia still have an incredible 4 man attack ahead of Webster/Green (though I'm not sure how much Green can bowl atm) anyway. In fact Mulder being a bowling AR was crucial for SA given Ngidi's poor performance, which meant that they still had a decent pace option even though overall they were screwed by his bad showing. You too can choose to believe how Imran can't ever be as useful as Sobers/Kallis but the reality doesn't have a Kyear bias. Stop relying on what other people think and use that mass in your head to come up with some actual points here.

Catching the ball is just not as important as bowling the ball or batting against the ball. The value of a specialist in that is thus naturally lower and so not as vital to select for. And even then to act like Flower wasn't up to standard is just doing what you accuse me and other people of when it comes to judging players 'unfairly/incorrectly'. I just don't see anything that suggests you have a point here.

I'm going to comment on the fact that you absolutely love to make **** up all the time though, so suck it. At the very least I'm still better than you.

No, a slip specialist is nowhere near the value of a 5th bowler, since the bowler is still the one creating wicket taking chances in more than one way compared to a slip who can only convert a certain type of chance created. Again, making **** up is a bad thing. You definitely don't need top notch slip fielding as much as you need good bowling/batting lineups. History speaks on that far more than it does on the value of slips being so high.

I find it ridiculous that slip fielding is in any way compared to 5th bowler or lower order batting.

You can literally train fielders for the slips. That is what SA and Aus have always done. They have good fielding standards and so they can train most of them to stand in the slips and catch well. Pakistan have **** fielding standards at all level and that is reflected in the slips. It isn't like anybody picks players for their slip fielding. And to win matches you need catching at an acceptable level. As long as you're not poor like Kamran ****ing Akmal and grab most of the regulation chances, your batting and bowling will determine the outcomes. Fielding will not have a role to play.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 avoided this post like I avoid my manager when I have not made enough progress on a presentation.

Great performances in every country doesn't mean consistency in every country.

How was he consistently over the course of said career in all of those countries compared to his peers.

He was below par for an ATG in Australia and India, and one good series in '88 against a lineup in decline. He mostly good in England.

 

[h_hurricane]

Great performances in every country doesn't mean consistency in every country.

How was he consistently over the course of said career in all of those countries compared to his peers.

He was below par for an ATG in Australia and India, and one good series in '88 against a lineup in decline. He mostly good in England.

If you do not consider the last period from Imran's career after the age when Marshall already retired, he averages 19 in India and 27 in Australia. That is pretty much ATG. At varying times in last 5 years, he was the best bowler in the team and the 2nd best batsman in the team holding together a brittle lower order.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He was below par for an ATG in Australia

Do you count WSC or not

 

[Xix2565]

Do you count WSC or not

Counts for Barry/Viv, not Imran smh.

 

[ankitj]

Great performances in every country doesn't mean consistency in every country.

How was he consistently over the course of said career in all of those countries compared to his peers.

He was below par for an ATG in Australia and India, and one good series in '88 against a lineup in decline. He mostly good in England.

All those aggregates suffer because of a longer career at both ends compared to Marshall.

Marshall has 4 player of series awards overseas, Imran has 5. If you disregard the one in India where he won the award for his batting, you still have equal number of superlative bowling series overseas for both bowlers. Marshall probably marginally ahead based on all other series but to argue that Marshall is in a different league altogether is just wrong.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

someone who can hold the bat the right way up is always a plus at 8.

This is different to 95% of your posts in this thread.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Mulder is not a batting allrounder though,

He is at 1st class level tbf.

He has underperformed with the bat in tests and overperformed with the ball.

 

[subshakerz]

This is different to 95% of your posts in this thread.

Yes notice how he just slipped in a statement that blatantly contradicts his entire premise.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Counts for Barry/Viv, not Imran smh.

Yes I know but I wanted him to say it ffs

 

[subshakerz]

Do you count WSC or not

Here are some of Kyear tricks to downgrade Imran:

- Passionately argue against ever considering batting for your bowling spots yet then acknowledge the batting value of the tail when Imran is not in the conversation

- Push for the legitimacy of WSC for Viv and Barry but not Imran

- Pick the period of Imran's bowling prime (76 to 88) yet only highlight batting numbers like RPI during it and not bowling numbers to make his batting seem worse

- Nitpick great series performances like in WI yet never mention weaker lineups played by other ATG bowlers

- Pick out higher average and SR countries for Imran to highlight and never for others

- Ignore any time Imran has ever been selected in an ATG XI and argue consensus against him, yet never fuss if Hadlee is selected with the same issue

- Pretend there is a wide gulf between him and other top tier pacers as a unstated premise for selection criteria though few in any agree

- Ignore Imran's captaincy entirely in rating him as a cricketer but insist slips must be a selection criteria

- Insist Imran is a cheat yet pretend this allegation doesn't affect his judgement in making these arguments

- Verbally abuse and mock those who push for Imran yet insist he is impartial

 

[subshakerz]

All those aggregates suffer because of a longer career at both ends compared to Marshall.

Marshall has 4 player of series awards overseas, Imran has 5. If you disregard the one in India where he won the award for his batting, you still have equal number of superlative bowling series overseas for both bowlers. Marshall probably marginally ahead based on all other series but to argue that Marshall is in a different league altogether is just wrong.

It's literally because Imran has a longer career. There isnt some huge consistency advantage for Marshall..

Eng: Marshall with three great series, one poorish one, Imran with two great and one poor

Ind: One great and one poor for each

Aus: One great and one mid for Marshall, one great, one very good, two poor, and one great WSC for Imran

NZ: Two mid for Imran, one poor for Marshall

WI and Pak: One great, one good and one mid for Marshall, one great and one good/mid for Imran

 

[kyear2]

There's a difference between what comes down to a player's performance and what is dictated by the pitch.

Mulder is not a batting allrounder though, and Australia still have an incredible 4 man attack ahead of Webster/Green (though I'm not sure how much Green can bowl atm) anyway. In fact Mulder being a bowling AR was crucial for SA given Ngidi's poor performance, which meant that they still had a decent pace option even though overall they were screwed by his bad showing. You too can choose to believe how Imran can't ever be as useful as Sobers/Kallis but the reality doesn't have a Kyear bias. Stop relying on what other people think and use that mass in your head to come up with some actual points here.

Catching the ball is just not as important as bowling the ball or batting against the ball. The value of a specialist in that is thus naturally lower and so not as vital to select for. And even then to act like Flower wasn't up to standard is just doing what you accuse me and other people of when it comes to judging players 'unfairly/incorrectly'. I just don't see anything that suggests you have a point here.

I'm going to comment on the fact that you absolutely love to make **** up all the time though, so suck it. At the very least I'm still better than you.

No, a slip specialist is nowhere near the value of a 5th bowler, since the bowler is still the one creating wicket taking chances in more than one way compared to a slip who can only convert a certain type of chance created. Again, making **** up is a bad thing. You definitely don't need top notch slip fielding as much as you need good bowling/batting lineups. History speaks on that far more than it does on the value of slips being so high.

If your performance is reliant on specially prepared pitches, it is a problem.

The thing is that I have repeatedly given my reasoning as to why Kallis, Hammond or Sobers are a better and more viable option for the all rounder spot over Imran and especially Hadlee, the overwhelming and unanimous referenced consensus is purely to provide verification and precedence to the argument. It's not something that's remotely up for discussion. And with regards to my perceived bias, Cricinfo had a bias as well? It was unanimous, Wisden had a bias?

Andy Flower has never been a great wicket keeper, a world class wicket keeper or even a full test standard one. He himself acknowledged that he knew he wasn't particularly special with the gloves and that Zim would be better suited by a better specialist. There have been many test keepers who have been below test standard, Pant is one example now. We've had plenty, Browne and Murray comes to mind.

With regards to slip fielding, I've already said that it's not as important as primary batting nor bowling. That's considerably different to comparing it to supplementary bowling or lower order batting. But the value of a specialist isn't lower and is vital for selection. Multiple players have been selected on the basis of their slip catching and much more have maintained their places because of it. This isn't a new premise nor game breaking, since the advent of fast bowling supremacy, it's been noted where most of the catches were taken and the importance of having socialists in such positions. I'm not sure if you grasp the concept that a dropped catch is a wicket lost. Even in this WTC final catching has played a greater role and had a bigger impact than either no 8 batsman or any of the 5th bowlers.
There's an entire thread where this has been litigated and there are viable arguments for each. I also don't assume that I know everything and reached out to the longest tenured and most respected members of the forum who all basically echoed my sentiments. You cannot win with a sub par cordon, history speaks to this as well. It's been a critical pillar in the success of the greatest modern teams of our era. All of the bowlers who gets the credit relied heavily on their catching support. Even from the 70's, Lillee, the quartet, Marshall, McGrath and Warne, Steyn. Even Hadlee had Coney and Crowe. The catches don't take themselves and it is a valuable and selectable skill. It turns matches, dropped catches actually looses them.

 

[Migara]

Point 2: John Wright gave you Bumrah.

It was with Malinga he learnt the trade. Eventually became better than the mentor.

 

[Migara]

Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee.

Imran scores it over McGrath or Hadlee, if things other than bowling is considred.

 

[Isura]

I think Marshall and McGrath stroll into this side easily. As others have mentioned, McGrath played in the most batter friendly era in the history of the modern game. Third spot I went with Ambrose but really wanted Hadlee as well. But Marshall + McGrath + Ambrose is just so intimidating