Are ARs just better by default?

[kyear2]

Whatever. End of the day, you also only have one place separation between McGrath and Hadlee. They are close and anyone suggesting anything else is lying.

And as long as your bowling attack is ATG, having a strong tail is necessary. Your tail will be Skittles out by a Martian XI.

Then why do only you see it that way.

Don't get me wrong, I know why you see it that way.

The fact is this isn't a 50 / 50 issue, this has never been a focus of team selection, not for good or well run or constructed teams. Again, definitely a bonus, but it's never been a focus of team selection, it's not a fix all and Hadlee isn't dropped if he couldn't bat.
The all rounder positions are consistently referenced as the no 6 and the keeper bat.

Even for All Time XIs it has literally never been a thing, as evidenced as there literally never been a team to focus on it.
Imran makes about, let's be generous and say half of these efforts, Hadlee near to none. Combination of both doesn't exist.

The order of priority for auxiliary skills for an all time or even world class XI, especially one with a batting line up consisting of Hobbs, Tendulkar, Richards and, oh yeah Bradman, with Sobers at 6 and Gilchrist at 7, would for any and all objective observers, be

A 5th bowler that isn't targetable when invariably enter the attack. One that can maintain pressure, keeping the run rate low and as a bonus, possibly taking a wicket or two, while potentially coming on as early as 2nd change and operating through at least some of the dog overs.

The order of priority for a bowling attack comprising Marshall, Warne, McGrath and your third bowler of choice, an attack that disproportionately dismisses most of their victims caught behind the wicket has to be an equally stacked cordon. But even then, within the confines of primary selection.

But without that batting line up, with Gilly at 7 and Marshall and Warne automatics in such lineups, there's no reason to force additional batting into a tail where the priority has to be the best possible attack to dismiss an equally formidable batting lineup.

But what I especially want to focus on is the dismissive "whatever" start to your response.

Obviously you don't have a valid response, but to dismiss why one bowler is objectively better, more adaptable and effective on a wider variety of surfaces, just so you can push your agenda is let's call it disingenuous.
Not to mention that a few months ago you were fully on board with the Hadlee is a tier below McGrath theory. Highlighting his deficiencies that ironically coincides with McGrath's strengths.
One was the undisputed champion of a flat era, vs the percieved third best bowler of a bowling era where he was easily the least effective on flat or even less helpful surfaces, is a dichotomy that is too much to ignore at this level.
But according to you he bats, so who cares.

 

[sayon basak]

No. He isn't a worldclass bowler.

He is a universe-class bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

The fact is this isn't a 50 / 50 issue, this has never been a focus of team selection, not for good or well run or constructed teams. Again, definitely a bonus, but it's never been a focus of team selection, it's not a fix all and Hadlee isn't dropped if he couldn't bat.

This is just factually untrue. Teams all the time factor in late order batting for certain players when they select them. Even WI did the same for Roger Harper who was a decent FC bat.

But what I especially want to focus on is the dismissive "whatever" start to your response.

Obviously you don't have a valid response, but to dismiss why one bowler is objectively better, more adaptable and effective on a wider variety of surfaces, just so you can push your agenda is let's call it disingenuous.
Not to mention that a few months ago you were fully on board with the Hadlee is a tier below McGrath theory. Highlighting his deficiencies that ironically coincides with McGrath's strengths.
One was the undisputed champion of a flat era, vs the percieved third best bowler of a bowling era where he was easily the least effective on flat or even less helpful surfaces, is a dichotomy that is too much to ignore at this level.
But according to you he bats, so who cares.

I think McGrath also is being a tad overrated, based on his record against SA, his relatively ordinary FC record at home and also not really stellar SC record. So it’s obviously close between Hadlee and McGrath, any gulf between them is imagined.

 

[kyear2]

Check again please.

In terms of what would be, in variable condorions, the best possible attack, the only name that could come into play is Barnes, and none of us saw him bowl to state that definitively.

Considering what Bumran can do with the old ball and his pace, from everyone we've seen, think he edges Wasim and along with Marshall and McGrath comprises a near perfect attack and the best on paper.

 

[kyear2]

I would presume because of the perceived gaps between Hobbs and the next opener and Warne and the next spinner. Votes would be inherently biased towards them, despite AR’s possibly having more value, they have more competition for spots. You can definitely believe someone is a greater cricketer but doesn’t fit your team based on who you’ve already picked. imo at least

It's the gaps that gets everyone placed higher though. Bradman was that much better than other batsmen he gets 100 votes. Sobers that much better than other players, he gets 90.
The gaps are there because they were better.

And for Hobbs it wasn't just openers, but batsmen in his time as well.

You're telling me that there's more competition for all rounders than batsmen?

And I've made my arguments against the notion that all rounders are autimatically more valuable. Miller wasn't even the 3rd most valuable player for his team during their defining series, and I went down a list of the best teams looking at who were their most valuable players, at no point was that an all rounder.

I will also say that situations create all rounders. If the WI had a better attack throughout his carrer, Sobers would have bowled less. As Kallis got better support and got older his load was reduced for the good of his batting. Imran's batring improved when he couldn't bowl through injury and was emphasized even more after he was not longer Imran with the ball, an attack times brittle middle order accentuated that as well. Hadlee similar and a stats monger. Kapil focusing on both meant he was never truly elite at either, Botham burned out.

Smith on the other hand, had a good attack and enough depth that he focused on his batting and dropped the bowling all together. To the betterment of himself and his team I might add.

This history of the game has made it quite clear that specialists elevate teams.

As far as team construction goes, if you belive that Imran and Hadlee are more valuable, you select them, it's not that hard. If you believe their batting overcomes what ever perceived deficits their bowling presents, go with both. I've literally never seen it happen, since I have to belive those in the know, also don't see that to be true.

I will also ask, what's the point of perceived value if you can make the final XI. This applies from grade school to test cricket. The sole position that would be an exception is wicket keeper and I've seen examples of playing with and using one as a batter, if he is so inclined.

There's no limitations of playing all rounders in a team, none. But Kallis isn't a good enough batsman if you already have a 5th bowler to justify his spot. You also already have elite cover at 2nd and 3rd slip. So he's not more valuable than what you have on the field. I think Hammond is the better cricketer despite being a worse all rounder, and he's closer to making my team.

If Kallis had definitively more value than Sachin, he wiuld make it of regardless of who else is in said team.

That applies even more so to Hadlee and Imran over Wasim, Barnes and McGrath.

It's more handy than critical to have a decent no. 8 who can chip in, but it depends on what level of sacrifice is required to allow that. And for what value.

 

[kyear2]

Also ftr there’s plenty of footage of Hadlee swinging it too. Wasn’t some one dimensional bowler as seems to be stated or implied at times in this thread.

Don't think anyone ever implied that.

 

[kyear2]

Isnt this such an obvious point? How many times does Kyear have to be questioned on using ATG XIs to prove greatness in rankings?

I've used multiple metrics, but you don't have to use me to make your point. Make it, prove it.

But the players in basket ball and football and even the wisden players of the year in cricket is seen as an honor and seen as the best within that time period.

Of your guy made more of them you would use it i imagine.

I'm sure he makes yours because you think he's the best.

If you belive someone is elite and top 3 or 4 all time, invariably he will nake your team regardless, conversely if he doesn't you don't think he's in the top 3 or 4, it isn’t as hard as you would want to belive.

I'm sure everyone on this forum who believes that Immy is a top 5 player has him in their XI.

Stop bitching dude.

 

[subshakerz]

It's the gaps that gets everyone placed higher though. Bradman was that much better than other batsmen he gets 100 votes. Sobers that much better than other players, he gets 90.
The gaps are there because they were better.

And for Hobbs it wasn't just openers, but batsmen in his time as well.

You're telling me that there's more competition for all rounders than batsmen?

And I've made my arguments against the notion that all rounders are autimatically more valuable. Miller wasn't even the 3rd most valuable player for his team during their defining series, and I went down a list of the best teams looking at who were their most valuable players, at no point was that an all rounder.

I will also say that situations create all rounders. If the WI had a better attack throughout his carrer, Sobers would have bowled less. As Kallis got better support and got older his load was reduced for the good of his batting. Imran's batring improved when he couldn't bowl through injury and was emphasized even more after he was not longer Imran with the ball, an attack times brittle middle order accentuated that as well. Hadlee similar and a stats monger. Kapil focusing on both meant he was never truly elite at either, Botham burned out.

Smith on the other hand, had a good attack and enough depth that he focused on his batting and dropped the bowling all together. To the betterment of himself and his team I might add.

This history of the game has made it quite clear that specialists elevate teams.

As far as team construction goes, if you belive that Imran and Hadlee are more valuable, you select them, it's not that hard. If you believe their batting overcomes what ever perceived deficits their bowling presents, go with both. I've literally never seen it happen, since I have to belive those in the know, also don't see that to be true.

I will also ask, what's the point of perceived value if you can make the final XI. This applies from grade school to test cricket. The sole position that would be an exception is wicket keeper and I've seen examples of playing with and using one as a batter, if he is so inclined.

There's no limitations of playing all rounders in a team, none. But Kallis isn't a good enough batsman if you already have a 5th bowler to justify his spot. You also already have elite cover at 2nd and 3rd slip. So he's not more valuable than what you have on the field. I think Hammond is the better cricketer despite being a worse all rounder, and he's closer to making my team.

If Kallis had definitively more value than Sachin, he wiuld make it of regardless of who else is in said team.

That applies even more so to Hadlee and Imran over Wasim, Barnes and McGrath.

It's more handy than critical to have a decent no. 8 who can chip in, but it depends on what level of sacrifice is required to allow that. And for what value.

How can you write so much without actually addressing an argument?

He simply said because in most ATG XIs, the ARs being selected face more competition, hence using their placement as criteria for greatness is flawed. Its not a question of how you would construct a team.

 

[subshakerz]

I've used multiple metrics, but you don't have to use me to make your point. Make it, prove it.

But the players in basket ball and football and even the wisden players of the year in cricket is seen as an honor and seen as the best within that time period.

Of your guy made more of them you would use it i imagine.

I'm sure he makes yours because you think he's the best.

If you belive someone is elite and top 3 or 4 all time, invariably he will nake your team regardless, conversely if he doesn't you don't think he's in the top 3 or 4, it isn’t as hard as you would want to belive.

I'm sure everyone on this forum who believes that Immy is a top 5 player has him in their XI.

Stop bitching dude.

Marshall almost never makes the top ten ranking of any pundit list of cricketers,

Yet you skip this inconvenient fact and cite his placement in ATG XIs to justify your own ranking of him as no.3 of all time.

Please explain this hypocrisy.

 

[kyear2]

This point is so crushingly obvious that it takes some sort of intentionally created blind spot to ignore.

There's more competition among all rounders than middle order batsmen?

Sobers was an all rounder and he made the top 5, quite easily as well. These are all excuses.

If people think all rounders are inherently more valuable they would vote them as such, just as you do.

 

[subshakerz]

There's more competition among all rounders than middle order batsmen?

Yes because at best there are two spots for ARs.

 

[subshakerz]

If people think all rounders are inherently more valuable they would vote them as such, jusy as you do.

What a silly point.

Many pundits rate Kallis a better cricketer than Sachin but wouldn’t replace Sachin with Kallis in an ATG XI if Sobers is already there because you don’t need that many side bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

How can you write so much without actually addressing an argument?

He simply said because in most ATG XIs, the ARs being selected face more competition, hence using their placement as criteria for greatness is flawed. Its not a question of how you would construct a team.

Uh yes. This. Greatest players don’t necessarily fit together on a team in order.

Don't think anyone ever implied that.

It was definitely implied that he offered little to no difference to McGrath, and that he was purely a seam bowler.

In terms of what would be, in variable condorions, the best possible attack, the only name that could come into play is Barnes, and none of us saw him bowl to state that definitively.

Considering what Bumran can do with the old ball and his pace, from everyone we've seen, think he edges Wasim and along with Marshall and McGrath comprises a near perfect attack and the best on paper.

You literally said its not questionable that Marshall/McGrath/Bumrah/Warne is the best attack…. ridiculous statement. Warne himself has Murali, and there’s Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran and Wasim (also Barnes) who all have very good arguments for why they belong there. Not questionable is a ridiculous statement. In fact any player being “not questionable” in an ATG XI is a ridiculous statement (with the possible exception of Bradman, whom a very small minority would still even argue against).

 

[DrWolverine]

Many pundits rate Kallis a better cricketer than Sachin but wouldn’t replace Sachin with Kallis in an ATG XI if Sobers is already there because you don’t need that many side bowlers.

For this team, who is a better pick?
Keith Miller or Viv Richards

1. Hutton
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Sachin
5. Sobers
6.
7. Gilly
8. Hadlee
9. Warne
10. Marshall
11. Steyn

 

[subshakerz]

Kyear actually believes than unless an ATG XI features all of Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Hadlee, Miller, Hammond, any of those not selected must default be inferior cricketers to the rest of the lineup.

 

[Johan]

Bumrah, seriously? Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Barnes, Murali and O'Reilly are all better bowlers for varying factors and by varying margins.

 

[subshakerz]

For this team, who is a better pick?
Keith Miller or Viv Richards

1. Hutton
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Sachin
5. Sobers
6.
7. Gilly
8. Hadlee
9. Warne
10. Marshall
11. Steyn

Viv because you already have five bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Not questionable is a ridiculous statement. In fact any player being “not questionable” in an ATG XI is a ridiculous statement (with the possible exception of Bradman, whom a very small minority would still even argue against).

Absolutely. I myself select McGrath in my ATG XI but its nonsense to suggest Hadlee doesnt have a case over him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There's more competition among all rounders than middle order batsmen?

Sobers was an all rounder and he made the top 5, quite easily as well. These are all excuses.

If people think all rounders are inherently more valuable they would vote them as such, jusy as you do.

Most people (not named @honestbharani ) only pick one or two all rounders in such ATG XI exercises going by the logic that the secondary discipline diminishes in value significantly after a point. Kallis is a better cricketer than Sachin/Viv (I don't think it's a particularly controversial statement) and even most people who do think he's better than Sachin/Viv, including me, wouldn't pick him in an ATG XI because Sobers exists.

One of Imran/Hadlee probably wouldn't make most people's ATG XIs and the vast majority of those people would probably agree Imran/Hadlee are better cricketers than McGrath and Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

The vast majority of the time, lower order bats are downhill skiing in relation to the top in terms of coming in against tiring bowlers, an aging ball etc. If you want to make the point that lower order bats are not as good as top order ones of the same average, sure. I accept that (with some caveats).

But this does not change the value add. You need people to take advantage. If you have an entire tail of Imrans, you likely go from 6/250 to 400. If you have a tail full of Martins you likely go from 6/360 to 400. The scorecard still says 400 at the end of the innings, irrespective of who scored the runs.

I am not sure if you mean downhill skiing in a different sense? Like tailenders only scoring when conditions are very easy? I dont have, or know how to get the data on this, but I'm pretty sure that the tougher the challenge, the higher the proportion of tail end runs. An unplayable delivery gets everyone out. Quality bats are much, much better against worse deliveries.

It's both tbh.

They aren't as good or productive of top order players with their averages.

But they also tend to padd their averages with with low consequence runs in dead matches, or rank attacks / minnows in poundings.

And no, the tougher the challenge the less tail end runs. People like to produce when the tail tagged, how many times more do they not.

I wish people would stop conflating Hadlee to even a Carl Hooper / Gus Logie type. They aren't saving test matches regularly. He, trying his best every match, ended up with an rpi of 23 for his career and a rpm of 36. They are lower order batsmen because they aren't specialist, world class, or even good.

To think that an attack bowled out Bradman, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards and Gilchrist yet Hadlee and Imran would be adding 150 is a pipe dream. To think they can do it consistently is hilarious.

And again, most of the great save jobs were often carried out by the non all rounders, just solid players.

And again, the difference betwen slips and the other two supplementary skills is that they drastically scale downwards versus better teams, and much much so than specialists. That's the down side, they aren't reliable to start and it just gets worse vs better opponents, especially away from home.

Go with your specialists at the specialist spots.