Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[kyear2]

I do that. I've got Sobers and Kallis opening the bowling, with Hammond first change.

The primary consideration for your bowling attack is their batting averages.

Is this not correct?

What is the basis and rationale behind your selections? Behind the thread?

 

[Xix2565]

How does that work away the SC and especially helpful pitches?

The problem with your 5th bowling option being the a bowling all rounder is that on helpful pitches it's not as required, and now you're a batsman short where said bowling all rounder is more likely to struggle in the referenced helpful conditions. In less helpful conditions, it's likely to be a draw and you're less likely to be in a position to guarantee that, with again, a batsman short.

The 5th bowler is also likely to get substantial time with the new ball, and their primary duties are most likely shower spells to rest the front line operators and bowling in the dog overs. Seems like a waste of a batting spot, for minimal returns.

But since this is such a brilliant fool proof plan I'm sure you can point out to me all the AT selections where Imran is chosen ahead of Sobers. Where you're swapping a top 5 batsman of all time for an rpi of 27. At 6, for an AT squad.
And if not Immy, who is it, Pollock, Vertori, Jadeja? The only viable option has ever been Miller and even that's questionable.

And just so that we're clear, a better bowling attack is based on quality not quantity.

A thought process obviously lost on you.

You'd have different player types for different conditions. It doesn't change the value of the bowling AR.

A better bowler is a better bowler, regardless of conditions. If you don't get that you don't get cricket and you might as well quit this site. A better bowling attack because of this will always be able to force wins even when conditions aren't favourable for them, because they'll have a better rotation of quality overs and will not concede as many runs as an attack with a worse bowler.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy you shouldn't lean on like a guardrail. Use that mass of cells in your head known collectively as the brain and come up with a better argument please.

Quantity of quality overs is what we're talking about here, not just quantity of bowlers. Less bowlers = more worse overs due to less rotations = less quality overs.

You don't have a thought process at all to be saying this to me.

 

[Cipher]

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.

I was basing it on the 1980-2019 graph not the 2020-2024 one.
Assuming most ATG's are from that timeframe rather than 3 black & white batsman.

 

[smash84]

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

It's the strawman that he keeps bringing up for some reason, and one that nobody is arguing for.

It keeps coming back to the same point that you mentioned earlier. Many posters here don't believe that the gaps in quality among the top 10 bowlers are too large. Most think they are in the same ballpark in terms of quality. Apparently, it's too hard for him to grasp this simple concept.

 

[Cipher]

I think Green/Marsh/Webster are far better 5th options than Waugh. So I'll still count them as part of the attack. And why are you worried about how much they should bowl? It's how much they can bowl that really matters. I do of course take ARs into account in discussing this, hence my comments about team balance. I'm always thinking first of an AR + 4 bowlers in these hypotheticals, not Waugh + Aussie quartet.

Part timers are more than ever getting carted around even with pitches being in their favour. If you feel like giving up free runs is good then we are at an impasse.

What are you even saying here???? How does having fresher bowlers bowling better spells take away from each other again?

My mistake I thought you were just saying 5 specialist bowlers, not including an AR.
Because if they're not getting enough regular overs in the side they're not maximising their utility as a bowler. (This was based on 5 specialist bowlers, the trade off for an AR matters less).

That's not what I'm saying, if you get through 90 overs in a day & you have 4 bowlers that's 22/23 overs each. With 5 that's 18 overs each. What I was trying to get at was that if you picked 5 specialist bowlers you would feel obligated to give them all overs. But the fact is even in an AT team your best bowler isn't as good as your 5th bowler. So you're taking away overs from your best bowler because of team structure. The other thing is do you know what the maximum amount of overs a bowler can bowl in a day is while staying fresh? Some bowlers are capable of bowling longer spells than others. If I had McGrath, Hadlee & Khan as my pacers I wouldn't be overly concerned about freshness compared to someone more injury prone like Bumrah. Again my point was based on the assumption you meant 5 specialist bowlers, not 4 & an AR.

 

[ataraxia]

The primary consideration for your bowling attack is their batting averages.

Is this not correct?

What is the basis and rationale behind your selections? Behind the thread?

Maths. For every single team in history, Imran will be much more valuable than McGrath. As the quality of cricket rises, all-rounders are less impactful. But even at that level the difference between the 1st and 5th best bowler of all time is way less significant than the difference between the 200th and 200,000th best batters.

 

[Xix2565]

My mistake I thought you were just saying 5 specialist bowlers, not including an AR.
Because if they're not getting enough regular overs in the side they're not maximising their utility as a bowler. (This was based on 5 specialist bowlers, the trade off for an AR matters less).

That's not what I'm saying, if you get through 90 overs in a day & you have 4 bowlers that's 22/23 overs each. With 5 that's 18 overs each. What I was trying to get at was that if you picked 5 specialist bowlers you would feel obligated to give them all overs. But the fact is even in an AT team your best bowler isn't as good as your 5th bowler. So you're taking away overs from your best bowler because of team structure. The other thing is do you know what the maximum amount of overs a bowler can bowl in a day is while staying fresh? Some bowlers are capable of bowling longer spells than others. If I had McGrath, Hadlee & Khan as my pacers I wouldn't be overly concerned about freshness compared to someone more injury prone like Bumrah. Again my point was based on the assumption you meant 5 specialist bowlers, not 4 & an AR.

Yeah, I've always approached it that way. I've never thought about only having specialist bowlers in any XI, let alone an ATG one.

You don't need to feel obligated about anything, you need to worry about how many good deliveries you can bowl. That is going to mean a healthy amount of rotation and thus overs getting spread out over the innings. I wouldn't overwork McGrath/Hadlee/Imran just because they were capable of longer spells. Same goes for spinners.

 

[Coronis]

Maths. For every single team in history, Imran will be much more valuable than McGrath. As the quality of cricket rises, all-rounders are less impactful. But even at that level the difference between the 1st and 5th best bowler of all time is way less significant than the difference between the 200th and 200,000th best batters.

Pfft no way does Imran make top 200. Also McGrath is like, 3000th

 

[Coronis]

@capt_Luffy think you’re the only one here who might’ve gone all the way to 200, Imran doesn’t make it does he?

 

[Cipher]

Yeah, I've always approached it that way. I've never thought about only having specialist bowlers in any XI, let alone an ATG one.

You don't need to feel obligated about anything, you need to worry about how many good deliveries you can bowl. That is going to mean a healthy amount of rotation and thus overs getting spread out over the innings. I wouldn't overwork McGrath/Hadlee/Imran just because they were capable of longer spells. Same goes for spinners.

Fair, how does your current ATG XI look with that in mind?

 

[ataraxia]

@capt_Luffy think you’re the only one here who might’ve gone all the way to 200, Imran doesn’t make it does he?

He's 194th on PEWS's standardised averages.

 

[Xix2565]

Fair, how does your current ATG XI look with that in mind?

Atm:

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Marshall
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

Steyn/Marshall/Hadlee/Warne/etc are all interchangeable here depending on conditions and how I feel that day.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I can't fathom how people think it right to sacrifice an ATG batting lineup to include extra bowling. To win a match, you need to score at least 1 run and that's very nearly guaranteed with my team.

This is true. In fact you can take 20 wickets and still lose the game, easily.

You can win a game without taking a wicket (and it can even happen without corruption in LO cricket), but you can never win a game without scoring/being awarded a run.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@Bolo. @ataraxia @smash84 @Xix2565 @capt_Luffy are you arguing to pick your entire bowling lineup based on batting? Please confirm/deny

Sometimes I really feel it's better to run head first into a wall than arguing Kyear...... I take Hadlee over McGrath as rate them as practically equivalent bowlers, the same reason I will take Sobers over Tendulkar in any team. And Imran is preferred for McGrath as I feel 3 new ball bowlers are redundant and ofcourse, he is a proper allrounder. Marshall's batting is a good addition, but won't care if he was a bunny like McGrath. Heck, I have Murali here over Warne.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy think you’re the only one here who might’ve gone all the way to 200, Imran doesn’t make it does he?

Nope. Peter Burge was 200th.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope. Peter Burge was 200th.

Hah, he's 199th in The Bible. Right between Atapattu and Gomes.

 

[Coronis]

Hah, he's 199th in The Bible. Right between Atapattu and Gomes.

Lets wait til the eventual update at least @Prince EWS

 

[ataraxia]

But really, Imran should make a list of the 100 greatest test batsmen. He averaged 51 over a 10-year, 52-test period – it's just his early career as a bowler who could bat that drags his overall record down.

(Reminder, kids: not outs don't boost averages.)

 

[ataraxia]

I like the fact that over the same timeframe Immy's bowling record in wins was 106 @ 11.87. He really tried to pretend to be Lohmann-against-minnows.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But really, Imran should make a list of the 100 greatest test batsmen. He averaged 51 over a 10-year, 52-test period – it's just his early career as a bowler who could bat that drags his overall record down.

(Reminder, kids: not outs don't boost averages.)

The lowest ranked Pakistani in my list was Asif Iqbal, don't think Imran is better than him really.