Are ARs just better by default?

[subshakerz]

There are laundary list of ATG's by various ex-cricketers, fans and experts. I have not done a job of compiling all fo them but we don't see 2 all rounders playing in all of them. Some may have 2 but I don't recall majority having 2 all rounders. I am not talking about having 3. One more after Sobers is a very low bar if all rounders are really adding more value by default compared to specialists.

Do you regard Wasim as an AR?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Do you regard Wasim as an AR?

A Great moment to ramble once again how an AR is just a spectrum. The batting you would gain with Wasim over Donald is more than that of Hadlee over Wasim, by some distance.

 

[subshakerz]

A Great moment to ramble once again how an AR is just a spectrum. The batting you would gain with Wasim over Donald is more than that of Hadlee over Wasim, by some distance.

Well my point is that many of those picking their XIs may consider him an AR.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well my point is that many of those picking their XIs may consider him an AR.

Well, tbh I think he should create a team himself and defend why Imran or Hadlee won't improve it, in place of whoever 3rd pacer he is using; rather using other's teams. Of those AT XIs by experts, I only remember Benaud's properly, largely because I watched the video, and he did picked both Sobers and Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, tbh I think he should create a team himself and defend why Imran or Hadlee won't improve it, in place of whoever 3rd pacer he is using; rather using other's teams. Of those AT XIs by experts, I only remember Benaud's properly, largely because I watched the video, and he did picked both Sobers and Imran.

Dickie Bird did as well.

 

[Coronis]

Imran bats better than Kapil and it's a more valuable discipline than Kallis's bowling.

 

[shortpitched713]

Almost nobody is going to pick three ARs in their ATG XI. Because as we said, it feels too indulgent

Agreed, that's why I personally would pick 4 or 5

 

[Johan]

View attachment 53236

You disagree?

 

[kyear2]

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.

That's not what I think. Once Sobers is there, there's no need for another all rounder / back up bowler, and Kallis, for all his versatility is totally outclassed by Richards and Tendulkar as batsmen.

Miller lacks the batting credentials and the bowling volume to make one of these as either batsman or bowler and Kallis, Hammond and Sobers are all more obvious and natural fits in such an XI.

None of these factors hold true nor precludes Hadlee or Imran. There's surely no limit or diminishing returns on batting depth is there?

Please follow me for a second

If these two are, as proclaimed on this site as the clearly the 3rd and 4th best cricketers of all time, if Hadlee was seen, as Johan proclaims to be fact, in the same tier as Marshall, McGrath and Barnes, and most critically if lower order batting was seen to be as important as purported here, then both, or at least Hadlee would be shoo-ins right?

Actually, as is practically every middle order Bradman, Tendulkar and Richards, every bowling attack should be Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne. Easy...

But not only is that not every bowling attack, it has actually never been collectively selected on any single occasion.

In all of the time that I've been knocking around this forum and reading and researching, I've literally never seen a combination of Imran and Hadlee, and to be frank, Hadlee quite simply never make these teams.

So either Hadlee, an ATG bowler no doubt, but isn't quite in the GOAT conversation as some here claim, or... lower order batting isn't the great elevator that it's belived to be, but both simply can't possibly be true.

As even you have noted (and I can present said quote from less than a month ago), the ranking of the bowlers in his era went something like Marshall, Lillee, Holding, Hadlee then Imran.

In a post not a month ago Johan made a list of bowlers, ranking them in flat bowling conditions, Hadlee was 9th out of 10.

And if I recall correctly, in terms of value of wickets and top order wickets Marshall, McGrath and.Ambrose were well ahead of both. In terms of performances in high scoring matches / unhelpful conditions, Marshall and McGrath are again ahead.

And that's before we get to XIs and taking a look at a wide range of selections, it provides tremendous insight, and it becomes alarming clear that lower order batting takes several back seats to who is gnerally perceived to be the better bowlers. Wisden, Cricinfo, Kimber, Boycott, Swanton, CMJ, Crowe, etc etc. We quite simply don't see teams stacking the tails there or in real world scenarios. Even looking at the more successful teams, none of them sacrificed bowling for batting strength.

So if the bowlers weren't quite as highly rated in the real world in their primary disciplines as believed, and lower order batting isn't valued nearly as highly as is assumed in these servers, what are we doing?

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.

Really want to touch on a couple of points here before I shut down for the night.

Kallis is a more versatile player than Viv and Sachin, better bowler for sure than both. He has never been a more impactful cricketer than either. He was not at his best vs the very best as I.V.A. was or even Sachin. He didn't move or influence the game as either did either. He wasn't a greater cricketer.

And even if Sobers didn't exist, many including Subz would still go with a Hammond, and some would still prefer a Miller. Both were more dynamic.

And as for the last highlighted statement, no, most pundits don't rate Hadlee ahead of Marshall. Looking at Gower's book right now and he has Marshall ahead of both, so does CMJ. Actually so is Viv, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Hammond. You're making assumptions based on your beliefs. You do include Hadlee and Imran because you belive them to be better. Why wouldn't everyone else adhere to a similar standard? Are they dumb, do they not understand how this works or do they just not value the secondary as much as you do?

There's some stances that we have taken here that just doesn't resonate with the outside or real world. We've decided that all rounders are automatically better, slower top order batsmen are somehow more important, we've elevated Hutton and Hadlee places they've never been, Imran and Hadlee are unquestionably the 3rd and 4th best players ever, no debate, and the echo chamber just keeps running with it. I can add more, but does it really matter at this point.

 

[subshakerz]

That's not what I think. Once Sobers is there, there's no need for another all rounder / back up bowler, and Kallis, for all his versatility is totally outclassed by Richards and Tendulkar as batsmen.

None of these factors hold true nor precludes Hadlee or Imran. There's surely no limit or diminishing returns on batting depth is there?

Yes there are diminishing returns on lower order batting.

Most of us here want a no.8 who is still capable of scoring hundreds or doing damage repair. We don’t need that from a no.9 or maybe no.10 who just need to hang around for the other better bats, so we can look at the pure best bowlers who can hold a bat. No.10 or no.11 can be just bunnies.

Hence no.8 is just a contest between bowling ARs like Imran, Hadlee and to an extent Wasim. If Hadlee doesn’t make it there, he will likely be overlooked for better bowlers like Marshall and McGrath.

None of this means Hadlee is a lesser cricketer.

Really want to touch on a couple of points here before I shut down for the night.

Kallis is a more versatile player than Viv and Sachin, better bowler for sure than both. He has never been a more impactful cricketer than either. He was not at his best vs the very best as I.V.A. was or even Sachin. He didn't move or influence the game as either did either. He wasn't a greater cricketer.

I am Sachins biggest fan and a detractor of Kallis the bat, but the reality is that there isn’t a huge gulf between them as bats to the extent that it isn’t covered by Kallis taking a wicket every innings in his career and being one of the best slips ever.

Your argument makes ever less sense when you think about how you sold us all on the importance of slips, and yet you will overlook Kallis’ while you don’t do that for Sobers vs Bradman.

 

[Johan]

Hadlee is probably the greatest bowler in history on pitches with anything in them honestly, he wasn't as penetrative on completely lifeless pitches as the rest of the top five pacemen but his output accross career is more than enough to warrant a ranking with the very best bowlers of all time in my opinion, which are Barnes, Marshall and McGrath.

 

[Randomfan]

None of these factors hold true nor precludes Hadlee or Imran. There's surely no limit or diminishing returns on batting depth is there?

I thought about it. It does not matter if you get 30 extra runs from number 7, 8 or 9. Only reason to ignore those extra runs are bowling gap being too much to be covered by those extra 30 runs. Fans and experts make that trade off when picking teams and we see result of trade offs in all times Xis.

Main goal is to pick 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions, that's what wins you a test match. If slight lower quality bowler + 30 runs can help to win more then most will have them even at number 10 and number 11.

More batting depth is always better unless it is costing you enough in picking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. In reality, it does cost you and that's why we don't see all time XIs filled with all rounders.

 

[Johan]

I thought about it. It does not matter if you get 30 extra runs from number 7, 8 or 9. Only reason to ignore those extra runs are bowling gap being too much to be covered by those extra 30 runs. Fans and experts make that trade off when picking teams and we see result of trade offs in all times Xis.

Main goal is to pick 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions, that's what wins you a test match. If slight lower quality bowler + 30 runs can help to win more then most will have them even at number 10 and number 11.

More batting depth is always better unless it is costing you enough in picking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. In reality, it does cost you and that's why we don't see all time XIs filled with all rounders.

This "All time XI" strawman stopped being amusing ten threads ago.

 

[Randomfan]

This "All time XI" strawman stopped being amusing ten threads ago.

You are free to ignore posts which you think has no merit. Others can surely debate. Trying to stop any debate which goes against pre determined belief does not help anyone.

If you don't like it , ignore. If you think anyone is crossing the line, report. If you think you have a good counter, then share. Lots of options other than trying to shut down debate just because it goes against your belief.

 

[Johan]

You are free to ignore posts which you think has no merit. Others can surely debate. Trying to stop any debate which goes against pre determined belief does not help anyone.

If you don't like it , ignore. If you think anyone is crossing the line, report. If you think you have a good counter, then share. Lots of options other than trying to shut down debate just because it goes against your belief.

You've never answered my question regarding why should we give any importance to All time XIs, which are fantastical imaginations, any relevance or regard when evaluating real Cricketers.

 

[subshakerz]

You've never answered my question regarding why should we give any importance to All time XIs, which are fantastical imaginations, any relevance or regard when evaluating real Cricketers.

They give it attention because actual rankings Dont support their theories as pacers like Marshall and McGrath dont rank high,

 

[subshakerz]

I thought about it. It does not matter if you get 30 extra runs from number 7, 8 or 9. Only reason to ignore those extra runs are bowling gap being too much to be covered by those extra 30 runs. Fans and experts make that trade off when picking teams and we see result of trade offs in all times Xis.

Main goal is to pick 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions, that's what wins you a test match. If slight lower quality bowler + 30 runs can help to win more then most will have them even at number 10 and number 11.

More batting depth is always better unless it is costing you enough in picking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. In reality, it does cost you and that's why we don't see all time XIs filled with all rounders.

Ok so will you pick Rizwan or Pant as keeper at no,7 in an ATG XI? Since the extra runs dont matter.

 

[Randomfan]

You've never answered my question regarding why should we give any importance to All time XIs, which are fantastical imaginations, any relevance or regard when evaluating real Cricketers.

I did it in past I will say it again.

Experts, fans and ex cricketers have tried to come up with the best XI of all time various times. Every one is trying to make the team as strong as possible and considers what value every player brings when construcitng the best posisble team.

Everyone considers if we add an all roudner then we gain extra 30 runs but we lose bowling quality to pick up 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. The same considerration is done by 100s of experts, fans, ex-cricketers for decades and that's done based on real perfromance produced by players. None of them are making a disney team there, they are considering actual performances and seeing who adds what value in makign the best posisble team.

I won't see that as only consideration, but blindly ignoring largest data set for opinions of value addition of all roudners vs specialist seems irrational. Saying that they are fantastical imaginations so we should jsut ignore does not make any sense. There is no real world contest in real time happeing between all top players in history. If that were the case, we could ignore so called fantastical imaginations. Entire excercise of comapring players across era is imaginary.

Hope it answers why I think the largest data set of opinions, which is very relavant to discussion, shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Johan]

I did it in past I will say it again.

Experts, fans and ex cricketers have tried to come up with the best XI of all time various times. Every one is trying to make the team as strong as possible and considers what value every player brings when construcitng the best posisble team.

Everyone considers if we add an all roudner then we gain extra 30 runs but we lose bowling quality to pick up 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. The same considerration is done by 100s of experts, fans, ex-cricketers for decades and that's done based on real perfromance produced by players. None of them are making a disney team there, they are considering actual performances and seeing who adds what value in makign the best posisble team.

I won't see that as only consideration, but blindly ignoring largest data set for opinions of value addition of all roudners vs specialist seems irrational. Saying that they are fantastical imaginations so we should jsut ignore does not make any sense. There is no real world contest in real time happeing between all top players in history. If that were the case, we could ignore so called fantastical imaginations. Entire excercise of comapring players across era is imaginary.

Hope it answers why I think the largest data set of opinions, which is very relavant to discussion, shouldn't be ignored.

These are Disney teams because they don't actually exist.

The idea of a team so overflowing with talent that they basically render secondary disciplines meaningless is the only way specialists can have a shot against All rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

I did it in past I will say it again.

Experts, fans and ex cricketers have tried to come up with the best XI of all time various times. Every one is trying to make the team as strong as possible and considers what value every player brings when construcitng the best posisble team.

Everyone considers if we add an all roudner then we gain extra 30 runs but we lose bowling quality to pick up 20 wickets cheaply and quickly in all kinds of conditions. The same considerration is done by 100s of experts, fans, ex-cricketers for decades and that's done based on real perfromance produced by players. None of them are making a disney team there, they are considering actual performances and seeing who adds what value in makign the best posisble team.

I won't see that as only consideration, but blindly ignoring largest data set for opinions of value addition of all roudners vs specialist seems irrational. Saying that they are fantastical imaginations so we should jsut ignore does not make any sense. There is no real world contest in real time happeing between all top players in history. If that were the case, we could ignore so called fantastical imaginations. Entire excercise of comapring players across era is imaginary.

Hope it answers why I think the largest data set of opinions, which is very relavant to discussion, shouldn't be ignored.

Do you feel the same about player ranking lists?